#something something radicalisation | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cruelsister-moved2 · 2 years

Text

tbhhh the op of this is kind of right dont get me wrong they went about it very poorly and very centred on their own view without considering the experiences of others so i completely understand where the criticism is coming from & also some of their reasoning is not great like i don’t believe ‘autistic people are EXTREMELY disconnected from the world around us’ or that not understanding NTs will turn you into a narcissist HOWEVER i do believe radicalisation and moral rigidity are for real things that affect autistic people disproportionately - not just alt-right, but any kind of extremism, religious fundamentalism, cults, etc. and also on a shallower level ive seen autistic ppl disproportionately swept up in like shipping discourse or whatever which does cause pretty serious negative impacts to their wellbeing (including like kids being groomed through it). i think there are people who KNOW to take advantage of vulnerable autistic people in this way and we should all be looking out for it and learn how to protect the more vulnerable members of our community. like i dont know if theyre trying to claim autistic n/zis shouldnt be held accountable or whatever and if they are then obviously thats insane, but when u follow the trials and start to see how many like extremist attackers are autistic you cant just turn away from that. from my perspective like addressing the vulnerability of autistic people to certain types of radicalisation could save the lives of their victims sooo i dont think we should avoid doing it... and i get its difficult bc u dont want to look like ur saying autistic ppl are more likely to do xyz bad thing, its just that autistic people (esp white men/boys) are especially vulnerable to online radicalisation and thats a fact... like obviously the goal is to have people who could never be convinced to harm other human beings, but if you have a certain number of those people in the population and its specifically autistic men who are being radicalised to act on it, thats a specific problem?? its not about the individuals, being like ‘oh this mass murderer is autistic so we should all forgive him’, its like on a systemic level lets acknowledge that autistic people are disproportionately vulnerable to radicalisation so we can address that and prevent it in the future... i also think, like i’ve talked about before, that the way society handles autistic boys is insanely toxic in a way that FREQUENTLY produces young men who are a danger to the people around them - NOT inherently bc of autism but bc of a particularly toxic form of male socialisation which we can literally prevent (particularly by increased visibility autistic women & autistics of colour bc just our existence is so combative to harmful stereotypes abt autism) so i think its important to include the gender & race elements when talking abt this kind of radicalisation, but i also think as the other side of that coin autistic women are more vulnerable to cult programming and other forms of radicalisation where the victim is you rather than others & op omitting that is frustrating and undermines their point but i think its super important to talk abt. does that make sense like ugh its hard to figure out how to summarise what im getting at but ive literally been noticing disproportionate numbers of autistic ppl involved in extremism and its like ok so is the correct response just to ignore that or

#and for real i mostly despise white autistic men #but its also like ok theres like clearly a failing here thats causing this problem for all of us #i genuinely think a lot of MRA types and the transmisandry truthers too are autistic #and its a type of moral rigidity coming from a place of like #inability to empathise + manipulation by others #and its like id be the first one to say i hate those guys im not saying we baby them and excuse them #im just saying maybe if we recognise this we can combat it #and there are a lot of types of radicalisation so..it is kind of something that affects everyone..

6 notes · View notes

vampyr-bite · 2 years

Text

got up to the force awakens in our star wars rewatch and GOD kylo ren has to be one of the worst characters of all time. i never really cared about the shipping wars that went on when the film was first released but actually now i do think reylos need to be oppressed.

#the writers really thought they Did Something with kylo ren #really he’s just a whiney incel who was probs radicalised on alt right space youtube #at least death vader had the decency to be camp as hell #;txt

3 notes · View notes

marioyuri · 1 month

Text

Augh frankly i dont want to talk to anyone ever again i just want to go in the woods and fight people until i cant feel the pain from the cold

#i try too hard just to feel disappointed #maybe its bc i used to fist fight too much as a kid #idk maybe its some kind of withdrawal #instead i have to be some fag that draws bullshit #i should join a boxing club or something #its not the same thing man #i just need someone willing to fight for fun #maybe watching fight club is not helping im gonna be so for real #watching this movie as a kid could have done something to me #now its just making me so fucking irritated in a way #its a good movie but ive already experienced these epiphanies so its just wasted on me #theres just so many radicalising media you can experience before you grow numb to it #like yeup what else is new #bleh #man i never realised how much i used to fucking duke it out with people #well people. heh #the details are irrelevant #too many new people talking to me and it makes me realise i genuinely dont like bothering figuring out who i am #i dont like it i dont care it doesnt even matter man #i dont care…….. dont force me to think about it OK!#i literalt just say the first thing that comes to mind and then act like yeah sure thats my opinion on the matter FUCKDO I KNOW IF THATS IT #I DONT KNOW? I DONT KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT ANYTHING???????????????????? YEAH SURE ☝️#fucking byllshit leave me alone #dude ive been dealing with like 6 dms at once every day idk what personality im using for who anymore #i care about the wrong people theres some people who are fine with me being lame i should care more about my friends i already have too #why am i so annoying to myself . i dont even care about other peoples opinions i think whats really bothering me is myself #i already know everybody fucking loves me i fucking love myself too or at least i think i do!!!!!!!!!!!!#what i do is that if you lie to yourself enough you end up believing it. thats been my philosophy for being happier being myself #but lately im starting to think maybe i just made it worse for myself in some twisted way #did i ruin myself man did i lie to myself so bad i cant even trust myself to be right about how i feel anymore. i dont know. i dont know man

0 notes

000yul · 4 months

Text

the thing that strikes me about the hortus de escapismo ending is that

uh.

!! MAJOR SPOILERS FOR HORTUS DE ESCAPISMO !!

ok so. the thing that strikes me most about the way the events concluded is that, ultimately, i think the sankta cube god achieves its ideal outcome. you could go so far as to say all according to keikaku, even

- roaming monastery retrieved

- the sarkaz are forced out to the wilderness, and no one complains

- violence/conflict is minimised

now that last point isn’t important to the sankta god because of any humanitarian reasons or anything like that. it’s important because it means no sankta character is significantly newly radicalised by the events of the story.

I think this is the true crisis that the sankta god is panicking about at the beginning of the story - the risk that sankta society sees the beginnings of a collapse because enough people question the awful things it’s built on.

let’s look at lemuen, the face of the ‘moderate’ sankta (bonus that literally she was a head prefect when she was a student). at the beginning of the story, she’s at a stalemate with the abbot because she won’t budge on the sarkaz issue. despite her being so nice!, and briefly leading fortuna to hope that coexistence is possible under the sankta god’s rule. when executor’s group enters the situation, and breaks the stalemate, the way the cards fall is that the abbot gives up hope. he comes to think: “peace wasn’t possible after all.” he accepts laterano’s ultimatum, defeated.

but what if the situation had resolved differently, because maybe someone more prejudiced than executor had been sent in? if things had resolved in violence, I believe lemuen might have come around to andoain’s point of view. after all, she keeps his notebook. his words are dear to her, even if she doesn’t agree. it’s not impossible to think that with more blood spilled, she’d be horrified enough to join him.

this is why executor was chosen. he’s a good man, at heart, and he does defuse the situation when it goes south. but his group being sent to the monastery is also a destabilising element in the situation, and executor himself recognises this.

executor’s partial success is exactly ideal for the sankta god.

it maintains the awful status quo. the question of “how can laterano force such a cruel binary choice on the monastery residents?” is just buried. and to any outsiders, the incident is just going to end up part of the self-fulfilling prophecy that is “ah well. sankta and sarkaz just don’t get along.”

the self-fulfilling prophecy, that by nature of the origins of the sankta, is a crucial pillar to laterano’s continued existence.

#survival is the only law….. or however it was phrased in guide ahead #they’re throwing the seaborn parallels directly in our faces at this point #forgot to mention this but there’s also something to be said about the abbot himself not being more radicalised #in the direction of the seaborn #arknights #arknights spoilers

196 notes · View notes

chaoswillcalmusdown · 1 year

Text

them: compile your thoughts about these articles

me: what even is "real" maths ????

#i'm typing up a whole thing about like: if you're moving something from grade 10 to 11 (for example)#does this mean that the thing was too hard for grade 10 or is it just that we're no longer demanding that level from grade 10 and therefore #you won't 'fit' the same amount of stuff into the same length of education #and therefore you keep having students who come into the next level of education with 'gaps in their mathematical knowledge' and therefore #the usual content is gonna be too hard so you'll need to move it up to the next course #and so on #does it make sense? idk #do i have any type of solution ? absolutely not #except: regulate the fuCkiNg text books for the love of god asdfgfgvfd #nothing radicalised me quicker than realizing there is not a single barrier of entry in this godforsaken country when it comes to text book #if you wanna publish a text book in any subject: you can #if you can then convince councils your thing is the best: you get rich #does that mean kids are profiting and learning? no 🙂#i'm so over caffeinated but i think it's oddly in my favour rn ??????#i'm connecting the dots !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!#or am i just typing gibberish for someone to peer review? i don't fucking know dudes

1 note · View note

homunculus-argument · 4 months

Text

In the brief moment in Lord of the Rings, when Sam carries the Ring, the Ring can't figure out how to corrupt him because hobbit desires are simply beyond its comprehension. Money? Power? Vengeance? What the fuck does this critter want? What does a hobbit want, other than to fuck off to a distant little corner of the world, to tend to a garden and mind his own business, forgetting and becoming forgotten by the outside world. Okay, what about a huge garden? Nah, that's too much work.

In unrelated news, TikTok algorithms are doing their damnest to radicalise my boyfriend into something, but just can't figure out an extremist group he'd be interested in. He doesn't want to hear about politics, religion, self-improvement philosophies, or any manosphere pick-up artist promises of getting laid. He doesn't even want to belong to a community of like-minded peers, the last thing he wants is more people talking to him.

What the fuck could it offer as a lure to a man who wants nothing else but to fuck off into the woods, never to be seen again.

1K notes · View notes

wild-at-mind · 2 years

Note

i get being an oppressed and depressed coward and all but i cant respect it. especially for myself. sorry you had a pregnancy scare but your country has never had your back bc states were designed to back the rich that feed it. grow up, get angry, your indignation is justified and necessary if you are to participate in how youre molded. living a depressed and scared little life in a fog is exactly how the state neutralizes threats, is that really what you want?

Hey anon, thanks for reaching out. I've changed my mind actually: please send me a numbered list of how to start a riot. Thanks!

#i dont care if you dont respect me btw youre on anon #i got radicalised a long time ago it just looks different to yours #im 30 something and im grown up #i personally found that this kind of rhetoric promotes inaction rather than anything else #and i dont emjoy owning the libs or consider it praxis

0 notes

saintsenara · 6 months

Note

What parts of canon do you find the most frustrating/that you are dissatisfied with/wished that was handled better/explored more? Mine is the inconsistency of Voldemort as a character. How he is described as being perhaps the most talented student that Hogwarts has ever seen and so powerful and intelligent but regularly made such dumb decisions e.g. in the final battle where he still uses Avada Kedavra despite seeing it not work before. I like the explanation that Horcruxes rotted his brain

thank you very much for the ask, @sarafina-sincerity!

the parts of canon which i find the least satisfying all have the same thing in common: their morality is individualist.

the harry potter series has - at its core - a really profound and very black-and-white belief that good and evil not only exist but are rooted in the individual. and while i understand why this is the case - the later books in the series are governed by the genre conventions of folkloric epic and, especially, of christian folkloric epic, which means that the whole seven-book narrative arc ending in a battle between christ and satan after which all is well is only to be expected - i don't like it.

so here we are... ten things i hate about canon, for fanfic writers to win my heart by interrogating in their work...

i hate the series' insistence that everything is fine once voldemort is dead

the middle books in the series - especially goblet of fire - do a really interesting job at hinting at the endemic rot in the ministry of magic, and the ways that the state and its enforcers perpetuated harm during the first war that was indistinct from that perpetuated by the death eaters - above all the use of internment without trial for suspected death eaters [which is a reference to something the british state actually did in the 1970s!].

they show how widespread blood-supremacy and magic-supremacy is, even among people who don't openly support voldemort; how the wizarding population is kept deliberately ignorant by what appears to be state-controlled media; and how no serious efforts have been made to eradicate the conditions which enabled voldemort to attain such power.

this is then forgotten completely in deathly hallows, where the fact that almost the entire civil service keeps working for a government which is committing genocide is hand-waved away with "oh, people are scared", and both the epilogue and jkr's post-series writing take the view that kingsley manages, as minister, to preside over a government which easily sheds all its old prejudices and starts working properly.

i don't like this! i think it's just much more interesting for corruption to be impossible to fully eradicate from the government, for blood-supremacy to have long-standing causes which actually take a lot of very hard work to untangled [especially the fact that the wizarding world not appearing to have a welfare state means that those whose lives are poor or unstable are prime targets for radicalisation], and for kingsley to have the same capacity for leaning on the prophet and worrying about his polling numbers as any other politician...

i hate that the series changes how the death eaters are written between half-blood prince and deathly hallows

connected to this shift from the series hinting at the broader issues in the wizarding world to a flat battle between good and evil is that the death eaters, their aims, and their modus operandi are written very different between half-blood prince and deathly hallows. in the former, the death eaters can be situated very easily as anti-state sectarian terrorists who have all sorts of complex analogies within british history and politics. in the latter, they're just caricatures of pure evil - which is why the death eaters introduced from the latter stages of half-blood prince onwards, especially the carrows, are considerably less interesting as characters than those, such as lucius malfoy, barty crouch jr. and bellatrix lestrange, who are introduced earlier.

it's also why the voldemort of deathly hallows feels so uninteresting. i don't like the fanon that the horcruxes render him insane at all - when he's shown outside of the epic battle between good and evil in that book, he's shown to be as lucid and cunning as always - but he ends up having to flop because his only purpose in the overarching narrative is to be killed. in the earlier books, in which he's a paramilitary kingpin poisoning and corrupting a society which was designed to exclude him because of the fact of his birth in revenge for its treatment of him, rather than satan and hitler's lovechild, he is so much more interesting.

i hate the series' belief that slavery is fine

obviously, one of the biggest examples of state malevolence in the series is that wizards own slaves. like many readers, i loathe that the house elf plotline ends up being reduced from its potential for radicalism in chamber of secrets - in which dobby mentions whisper-networks of elves who decry their treatment at wizards' hands - to what we see from goblet of fire onwards - in which elves love being enslaved and think that any attempts to free them from their subjugation is cruel.

i also hate that elves' freedom is then hand-waved away as part of the general race towards "all was well" with the implication that hermione found it easy to undo what appears to be centuries of state-sanctioned oppression without any pushback at all.

the house elf plotline is one of the clearest distillations of the series' individualistic morality. harry abhors the treatment of dobby at the malfoys' hands entirely and only because he doesn't like the malfoys. he abhors voldemort's treatment of kreacher, but sees absolutely no issue with sirius' because he likes sirius - and he clearly sees no issue at all with his own legal mastery of kreacher, seeing as, literally minutes after the end of a war in which the good guys fought for the rights of muggles and muggleborns to be seen as fully human... he is considering ordering his slave to make him a sandwich.

i hate that the series doesn't show the realities of resistance

the reason i think the whole "why does voldemort keep using avada kedavra, isn't he supposed to be clever?" question arises is because the series is incredibly resistant to the idea that the good guys must have to kill as well, which makes it look like it's only the death eaters using it while the order use lots of clever magic that the stupid terrorists are too thick to think of.

this is idiotic - not only because the killing curse is canonically flawless unless the thing you're blasting is your own horcrux and so the order would use it for efficiency's sake alone, but because the reality of being a resistance fighter is that, even if you're on the "right" side, you are going to have kill people or they will kill you.

lupin is completely right in deathly hallows that harry is breathtakingly naive to avoid shooting to kill and that - without the protection of genre conventions allowing him to be preternaturally merciful - his resistance to killing is going to result in him being destroyed by the enemy. it is inconceivable that the rest of the order don't using the killing curse - and the question of what this does to their souls [is it murder if you believe yourself to be justified in your actions?] and their senses of self post-war is so interesting to think about - and i wish we were shown this in the text.

especially because molly absolutely blasted bellatrix with it.

but i also hate that the series thinks that violence is fine when the good guys do it

this is primarily another example of the black-and-white "this is fine because harry's good" theme which runs through the series, which we see in things like harry using sectumsempra on draco malfoy in half-blood prince or the cruciatus curse on amycus carrow in deathly hallows. harry's overarching response to committing attempted murder is to sulk that the incredibly minor punishment he receives is reducing the time he could spend hitting on ginny, and his response to torturing amycus is "lol. lmao."

the series thinks - again and again - that cruelty and violence are completely fine when the person they are perpetuated against "deserves" it, and it does not bang.

and that the series allows the good guys more complexity in characterisation

the role played by the house system in the story - and, above all, the fact that our heroes are all connected to one particular house with straightforwardly admirable associated characteristics - means that the villains receive less opportunity to also have positive traits intermingled with their negative ones - and, therefore, complex and interesting personalities.

i also dislike that when non-gryffindor characters - especially slytherins - do reveal themselves to be brave and loyal etc., instead of recognising that this is because bravery can be multi-faceted the series suggests that they should be recategorised as "belonging" to a "good" house.

or, in other words, me and dumbledore's "i think we sort too soon" line in deathly hallows are enemies for life.

i hate that the series blames merope gaunt for dying

and - of course - the main way a villain isn't allowed as much complexity as a hero is that the series never examines the impact of voldemort's childhood on his adult self. while we see hints throughout canon of just how profoundly affected he is by his institutionalised childhood and the weight of his grief over his parents [his mother especially] - such as him learning as a baby never to cry for attention because it's futile - this is hand-waved away throughout the series by dumbledore-as-the-voice-of-god as irrelevant. the eleven-year-old tom riddle is straightforwardly evil, that he grows up in an orphanage is used as nothing more than narrative colour to underline how creepy he is, and dumbledore's spectacular mishandling of their relationship is viewed by the series as undeniably correct right up to the very last moment [when harry imitates dumbledore by - and we should call it what it is - deadnaming voldemort in their final confrontation].

but the most egregious thing that dumbledore does when discussing the course voldemort's life takes is blame merope gaunt for her own death in childbirth, by implying that witches are immune to one of the most common causes of death throughout human history if they just try hard enough and then saying that a nineteen-year-old girl whose life appears to have been nothing more than unrelenting abuse and misery [perpetuated both against her and by her] lacked the moral fibre to try hard enough.

and this infuriates me.

i hate how the series treats female characters who don't fit its narrow spectrum of "correct" womanhood

merope is but one victim of the series' general issues with treating women who aren't its heroes - all of whom are exactly feminine and beautiful and clever and talented enough that we know they're good people, but not any of these things in an extreme which could make them vapid or arrogant or defiant of social norms or so on.

the series takes a very low view of women who exist outside of narrow boxes - whether they are interested in a hyper-feminine aesthetic [lavender brown, rita skeeter] or a more masculine one [marge dursley]; conform to stereotypes about being bitchy, flighty, or vapid [pansy parkinson, romilda vane] or refuse to adhere to social expectations to be polite, meek, and demure [fleur delacour]; are unmarried, are not inherently maternal, and/or are cruel to children [bellatrix lestrange; petunia dursley; dolores umbridge]; are unrestrained emotionally [cho chang; moaning myrtle] and so on. and i don't like it.

and i also hate that - connected to this - the series uses physical appearance - especially weight - as a shorthand for [female] characters we're supposed to dislike.

what it says on the tin, really - if the series doesn't like a character, especially if the character is a woman, you can almost guarantee that they will either be fat or be unusually thin.

and finally...

i hate that the series prioritises one form of love - love as suffering and as sacrifice - over all others

part of the series' march towards the epic two-person showdown between good and evil is that harry is made to endure trial after trial - including his death for the salvation of mankind - in the name of love. obviously this is because he becomes, by the end of deathly hallows an allegory for christ, but it also fits into the series' view - articulated most frequently by dumbledore - that love, suffering, and sacrifice are all synonyms.

the acts of love the series foregrounds - snape's willingness to endure anything because of his love for lily; sirius' willingness to rot in azkaban and caves and grimmauld place because of his love for james and harry; harry giving up a love that's like "someone else's life" with ginny so he can go die - are all sacrificial, and the series generally takes a dull view of love that is fluffy, silly, carnal, selfish, soothing, transformational and so on. lavender and bellatrix's open adoration of their lovers is mocked; dumbledore's sexual desire for grindelwald is punished by his sister's death; tonks and lupin's uncomplicated happiness in the birth of their son is not to last.

but happy endings and silly jokes and forehead kisses are love too. and the hill i will die on is that they have even more potential to bring about the salvation of the world than constant suffering and abiding.

#asks answered #asenora on canon

206 notes · View notes