liberal-brainwashing-blog

[liberal-brainwashing-blog]

Joyner Lucas’s “I’m Not Racist”: Centrist Bandage to Skewed Gashes

To begin, I’d like it to be known that this is the first Joyner Lucas song I have ever heard. I knew nothing of this artist before I heard the song “I’m Not Racist.” On November 28, 2017, Joyner released a music video for the song detailing visually what the song itself portrays. A white man and a black man are sitting at a table. Alone in a room, these two share, passionately, the things they think about each others race. While there is plenty, and I mean plenty, to discuss in this music video and song, I will only be discussing the ways to which the video and song inadequately explain the power dynamic between these opposing ideological views. 

Part 1: Minimal Context

To begin, we first see and hear the disdain the white person has for black culture and black people. He conveys this by listing mostly stereotypes. Using the N-word multiple times, this character is written to exhibit white Americans perspective of black people. To say all white Americans think this way would be absurd, what is instead being said, which I think most can agree on, is that this certainly represents the political ideals of the majority of white Americans. 

In the second half of the track, the black person begins stating, again in detail, the ways to which American society (white people) discriminates, prejudges, and effectively traps the black community. 

After the discussing is said and done, both men stand, seem to be somewhat understanding of each other, and share a hug. 

Part 2: Here We Go With The Centrism 

While I think this kind of discussion is positive, I feel as though Joyner undermines the true nature of the racism in America by presenting these two ideologies as almost equal opposites. This kind of odd comparison can be exampled by people thinking All Lives Matter carries equal weight and effect as Black Lives Matter. This is a sort of yin and yanging to which centrist ideology subscribes. Centrists detail the answer existing within the middle of supposed “extremes.” I have a large problem with this view, hence me writing this post. Sides are often not the same. It would either be one or the other. While a duality may exist along other ideologies, duality hardly exists within a conversation about anti-racism and pro-racism (because racism is clearly unethical within this context). This being the case, Joyner seems to believe this to be the case. At the end of the song, the black person states, “You can’t erase a scar with a bandage, I’m hoping maybe we can come to an understanding. Agree to disagree we can have an understanding.” While this sentiment seems positive, it totally diminishes the affects a system governed by racist ideology on black individuals and the black community. This racist system is not simply something we can agree to disagree on, go home, and then everything is solved. There are layers upon layers of racism built into American culture and governance. To say that the answer is to agree to disagree is misleading. 

At the end of the video, Joyner writes a short phrase reading, “WE WERE ALL HUMANS UNTIL RACE DISCONNECTED US, RELIGION SEPARATED US, POLITICS DIVIDED US, AND WEALTH CLASSIFIED US.” In my opinion, one of these statements is totally misleading. 

Part 3: RACE DISCONNECTED US. 

While racism is a global phenomenon, I find it far too reductionist to say simply race divides humans. Not only has race divided humans, lets detail how it has done so. Majorly it was those of lighter complexion oppressing those who are darker. To say we are separated by race is true. This being the case, we must further break down how it has separated human beings, namely, light people discriminating against dark people. Furthermore, this race disconnection is not of equal giving, it is not as if all races decided to disconnect from each other. A more accurate statement would be that some races decided others are inferior, and deserve, well, shit. One group oppressed another. One is responsible for the others downfall. One is held responsible. One is wrong. 

Part 4: The Pillar in the Room. 

Within the video, the room to which the two men sit across from each other is held up by numerous pillars. Using these pillars, the camera often presents the two characters in focus equally between the pillars. The video is literally defining sides here. One racist, one non-racist. This being the case, the video paints these opposing viewpoints as just that, an opinion or take on reality which holds similar weight. Thus the video further demonstrates the lack of understanding of how racist systems function, affect, and destroy. 

Part 5: A Quick Conclusion 

To be transparent, I have not written an article in a while, and this is much less well researched than some other articles I have previously written. Thus, I did not go as far into length into some ideas, like systemic racism existing in America. This article serves to critique the video understanding systemic racism in America exists, not that is should be hotly debated. What do you think of the video? 

[liberal-brainwashing-blog]

“Safe Space Sectarianism: Race Based Exclusion at Evergreen State College”: A Measured Response

This post serves to be a response to a good friend of mines most recent post on “Purple Politics.” Disclaimer: I love Purple, they are great friend of mine, I simply disagree with this post. Now to the fun.

Purple had made a post about the recent protests at Evergreen State College located in Olympia Washington. In some videos related to the protest, we can see protesters talking over, and yelling at a possible authority figure of the College. Now, while this obviously seems obnoxious, the substance of their protest is because of one thing, racism that happens on campus, something that happens quite often. While I cannot really comment on the simple news reporting of Purples post, what I can observe is their section titled “Purple’s Pondering” to which the Purple effectively gives their take of the situation.

There are a few things within Purple’s Pondering that I have issue with and will expound upon. Let us being with a quote from Purple.

“While this story has been co-opted by the right as an example of the ‘crazy’ regressive left, this story does disturb me in many ways.’

This co-option of the story by right wing media sources seemed to slip into the very language and perspective Purple presents when discussing these topics. Within the first sentence of their post, Purple states, “Evergreen State College called for the forced exodus of all white community members, running rampant throughout the college with a list of demands,” we can see a clear showing of right wing sensationalism. To be clear, and as stated by The Olympian, this protest may be described as such.

“Chanting “Hey-hey, ho-ho, these racist teachers have got to go,” hundreds of students filled the third floor of The Evergreen State College’s Library building Wednesday and surrounded president George Bridges’ office.”

Describing students as “running rampant” leads us to believe the students are barbarians pillaging, looting, and raping, as the administration cower in fear of their looming control. This is hardly a fair portrayal of the campus protest despite Purple striving to be a moderate voice in this boiling political climate. Furthermore, describing the call for non-POC to exit the campus, in a sort of opposite protest as previously POC would leave the campus in protest of racism on campus, as a “forced exodus” is utterly misleading. It is as if the students are walking around with firearms threatening to blast or even beat up the students who decided to stay on campus. While I do have some qualms with this tactic of protest, I hardly see it being carried out to such biblical proportions as Purple portrays. In fact, we do not even know how this went down, Purple has provided no news in light  to this accusation except from clearly right winged news sources and Purple’s own speculation. As someone who strives to understand, with a moderate viewpoint, these incidences, Purple cites Tucker Carlson and a Youtube video titled “Evergreen College SJW Students Demand No Homework,” among only one seemingly non-politicized source.

Let us examine another, more concerning quote.

“The fact Bridges refused to take the matter into his own hands shows the culture of fear that is being substantiated within leftist circles, as accusations of racism hold extreme weight even when they have not been substantiated.”

I am slightly confused as to what Purple means here, as we see, Bridges literally in the room, engaging with protestors, and working through their demands, declining and accepting some. I am also confused at such unsubstantiated claims of racism. Students are there protesting a clear case of racism related to an incident happening on May 14th to which two black students were woken by the police and take into questioning over a Facebook argument. Calling these claims “unsubstantiated” is not only logically incorrect, but also shows a sign of bad faith from Purple to which it would seem Purple believes that people are co-opting narratives of discrimination purely for control and power, not because POC are victims of racism. It could be argued that people like Milo Yiannopolous and Blaire White do similar things, although Milo is actually gay and Blaire is actually trans, but their report seems to be filled with anti-trans, anti-gay, and anti-POC sentiments. If anything, it would seem that the only people actually doing this, are people situated on the “right” side of the political spectrum.

Purple is a good friend of mine, and I would like to see in further posts an actual show of moderacy and academic integrity to which this post appears to be lacking somewhat. Do I disagree with Purple in everything within this post? No. What I do find are clear holes to which Purple is reporting misinformation or unsubstantiated claims.

UPDATE: Some things Quoted by Purple have been amended or taken out of the original post. 

[liberal-brainwashing-blog]

“Alternative” Culture & The Extent of Rebellion

Living in the SF Bay Area, specifically Oakland, there are a lot of people who are extremely similar to me. Dressing the same, having the same interests, listening to the same music, doing similar activities, and so on and so forth. If one would walk into Dolores Park in San Francisco, you will find plenty of people who look extremely similar. Similarly black clothes wearing, septum ring having, doc martin wearing, weed smoking, tattoo getting, feminism loving people. Now, let me make myself absolutely clear, nothing is wrong with enjoying these things whatsoever. I am very much happy to like the things I like, do the things I do, and believe the things I believe (with willingness to change). Specifically in the SF Bay Area, many people are in a similar boat as I, but some are not. In fact, some people are very uninterested in being in some way a part of such a subculture. I am not speaking about tech workers & fraternity members, I am speaking of the very same My Bloody Valentine loving individuals who belong to such a subculture. 

When discussing this subculture, I will speak of what I know of, and that specifically is, white cisgendered individuals. I recognize that, intersectionally, different identified people definitely experience these cultures differently. While there may be some queer POC may have a similar mindset as previously mentioned, I will not attempt to prove such an argument because, frankly, I am speaking from my experience and my experience is white cis straight male. Luckily for me, many other people within such the subculture to which I exist are of similar composition. 

Part 1: The “Alternative” Culture

Enough description, words are hard to read enough as they are. Here are some wonderful photos that well describe the subculture I am speaking of. 

(Above: A picture of George (middle) and Kerry (right) of the metal band Deafheaven) 

Just a couple of metal loving, hardcore enjoying, binge drinking, pot loving, black wearing, hip dudes. Many white men look like this within the SF Bay Area’s “alternative” culture, even me! 

(Above: Some lovely person with many tattoos, short hair, and a lovely top.) 

Similarly, many white cis women within such an SF Bay Area subculture look fairly similar to this. 

(Above: Some members of the post-hardcore band Tigers Jaw. Don’t they look different?). 

Just a couple of white men, and white woman, looking nice and cool. 

To be honest, I like the way these people look. Furthermore, I would probably be friends with them as people. A very specific aesthetic choice of this subculture is the easiest way to identify its existence, an aesthetic I quite enjoy. I have no issue with these people, the way they dress, their tastes, and other such things (although I am not aware of their politics). What I find fascinating, is that there are people who belong to this subculture, wildly and fully, and still find themselves striving to exist in a culture that is even more contrary to popular culture. There are two things we can observe from this phenomenon to which we will discuss now. 

Part 2: Popular Alternatives 

The scale to which this alternative culture has grown within the SF Bay Area that I cannot even walk outside without seeing one person wearing black, a cool dress or top, or tattoos. People participate in alternative culture because, well for one it looks cool right, and second, there is an appeal of being a part of something other than the majority. However, it would appear that this subculture is no longer as subversive as it once was. Its growth has become that of, by observed by some, at odds with popular culture. This vast growth of the subculture seems to take away from its previous exclusivity and rebellion. Some people want to be different from any form of popular culture so bad that they are willing to try and deviate themselves from this subculture. 

Part 3: Futile Expression

 However, this kind of hyper individual person goes from tattoo to the next in trying to be so different from alternative cultures. These attempts are clearly futile and amount to an even stronger conforming to alternative subcultures. To this person, there is really only one way to rebel. However, this rebellion, inherently, places them in a rebellious culture. This person is attempting to flee the utter inevitability that others will do the same, and the complete hyper individualism they are seeking is truly non existent. This is the same kind of ideology utilized by far right republicans. Thinking they are not a part of a culture, a society, living solely on their own property, by their will, by themselves. This idea is not only unrealistic, but it is also dangerous, as we have seen by actions of such politicians who hold such ideologies. People, individuals, convene to groups. It is almost inescapable.

Part 4: I Love Communities 

People get together, make communities, and just as so, cultures. As wonderful as this is, a community bent on individuality starts to fail and become confused when its ideology moves to extremes. Just as so, when a community is built upon the grounds of rebellion, there seems to be some people who resent the people around them. Of course, most people are not like this, but some are. And just as so, these hyper rebellious then become something they probably strove to divide from in the first place, conservatives.  

[liberal-brainwashing-blog]

Relational Coercion: The Dependency Model in Modern Day American Capitalism

When considering who takes over what roles within a relationship, the conversation is often complex. While it did not always used to be like that, since women were simply relegated to such a role, in Modern Day America families seem to have set rules regarding who does what most of the time. Be it a spouse cleaning the dishes, still usually the woman, a spouse doing the laundry, again a women still is usually relegated to do so, and other miscellaneous tasks. While I will not go on a banal rant about how women being relegated to these roles is bad, because hopefully it is understood that it obviously is, I would like to understand how the almost hostage like means of negotiation define modern relationships, consent, and love. 

First, we can identify a simple model we may denote as the dependency model. According to Sylvia Walby, 

“Human capital theorists argue that it is in the interests of the household as a unit for one of its adult members to concentrate on domestic work and one on paid work.” 

Understood further, this is actually a pretty simple idea. Within a household, to which we will define household as a piece of property occupied and owned by a married straight cis-couple with children, someone should stay at home with the kids and perform a myriad of other domestic tasks. Clearly, we know, that this division of labor happens even today and that, typically, women are on the short end on the stick here by history and the modern American wage gap (Miller, 2017).

This being the case, we may observe some very shifty negotiations that turn into something almost of a forceful nature. In understanding the nature of the house worker, Julie Brines states, 

“Housework-unpaid labor performed within the household-is by definition without exchange value in the classic sense; that is, it is nonportable or illiquid as a form of currency beyond the specific relationship, unlike what the main breadwinner brings to the trade. This difference in the fungibility of resources allows for the emergence of an unequal exchange relation between the two parties.”

Since housework and being a “domestic” is not strongly contracted, its labor is without exchange value, unlike literal currency, this leaves the houseworker to be a completely unequal position within the relationship. This would not seem to be a problem if only the breadwinner was an all loving perfect being, but alas, man seems to have his flaws. 

This type of unequal economic system makes the breadwinner almost as a debt collector, to which he may hold all of his money over the dependent and command orders and act in an exploitative manner. 

“The advantage such asymmetry confers upon the main breadwinner paves the way for exploitation, although the extraction of what might be considered the surplus labor of dependents need not arise through direct coercion or exploitation. Such strategies are not unknown, of course, but they oppose the ideological underpinnings of the marriage contract, where the values of love, mutual trust, and commitment disallow both coercion and, as a rule, pursuit of the zero sum.” (Brines 1994). 

This being the case, we can see then that, within a modern capitalist economy, relationships function not as a loving companionship, but as a means of debt buying and collecting. Your wife didn’t do her housework? Beat her. After all, she is not carrying her weight. This dependency model hardly follows what society thinks of as a loving relationship, although it is acted out quite often. 

Such an awful affect of the dependency model can be seen even further within sexual interactions. How often have you heard something like “Well, I paid for her drinks, so she better deliver on some head.” I heard a speaker at a conference state something like this in order to understand the horrific nature of entitled masculine ideals, and the person sitting in front of me unironically agreed with the speaker. He believed every word the speaker was saying as if he was preaching utter truth. If you pay for a woman’s time, this becomes all right to have sexual intercourse with them, in fact, you deserve it. This kind of awful exchange happens not only within creepy bar scenes, but also within the household. Men hold it to their women’s neck that they are the breadwinners and should be performing in a sexual capacity. Further showing how such antagonistic capitalist ideas utterly transform relationships into am effective bank to which loans are given and expected to be paid with interest. 

Concluding, this is only one of the many facets of existence to which the neoliberal ideology corrupts, and destroys. 

Sources: 

Brines, Julie. "Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home." American Journal of Sociology 100.3 (1994): 652-688.

Walby, Sylvia. Theorizing patriarchy. Vol. 20. Oxford, 1990. Miller, Claire Cain. "The Gender Pay Gap Is Largely Because of Motherhood." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 May 2017. Web. 19 May 2017.

[liberal-brainwashing-blog]

Women & The Protestant Reformation: A Historical Examination

(Pictured Above: Katharina Von Bora, Martin Luther’s wife)

Two concepts I never expected to hear together were brought to my attention the other day. This being “The Protestant Reformation” and “Women’s Rights.” Apparently, some would like to accredit the status of current Women’s Rights movements, among other Feminist Movements, to the way women were treated in the reformation era. Some argue that it is because of reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, who “gave” women the “choice” to be housewives and mothers, that we have such a state of female empowerment today. Women, among men, were now able, in the reformation era, to receive education in reading the bible in order to become better housewives and mothers. These types of critics think that allowing a woman the option to be a housewife is a liberating and pro-women thing. Now, while this does seem to be the case, such a naive, and a-historical examination of women’s roles in the reformation era erase much of the struggle and oppression women faced within such times. I would like to argue that although women were “given” some form of “choice” of a societal role and education, that this really didn’t amount to the type of choice in women’s lives we examine today, and are indeed not synonymous. 

Part 1: Reformation Prefers Domesticity 

According to Dr. Kathryn Kleihans, 

“At the beginning of the 16th century, women’s life choices were limited. Living as a single, independent woman was simply not acceptable. Most women transitioned from being under the authority of their fathers to that of their husbands and then, if they outlived their spouses, that of their eldest son.” (Kleihans). 

So, before Martin Luther and the rest of the revolutionaries shook the world with their ideologies, women were often relegated to a patriarchal dictation in society. Women, effectively, were bounced around from different men with independently living being a non-option. The only other, seemingly practical option for women, was to join a convent. While this seems all fine and dandy, most of the time this decision was not even left up for women to choose. As Kleihans states, 

“Some women joined convents, but this was often their parents’ choice rather than their own. For example, 12th-century mystic Hildegard of Bingen was the 10th child in her family and her well-to-do parents gave her to the convent as a tithe” (Kleihans). 

So here we have two roles to which women could exist within society. Mind you, these roles are not chosen by women, they are dictated by men. These are not independent choices women are making. This is crucial to keep in mind. 

Continuing, during the middle ages, as Kleihan states, 

“the celibate life of a nun, monk or priest was seen as a “higher calling” than the married life of ordinary people. The reformers rejected this idea. Instead, they praised both marriage and parenthood as worthy callings for all Christians.” (Kleihan). 

The reformers hated the idea that “choosing,” again, for women this was not a choice, the path of a nun or any other higher spiritual role in society over that of marriage. Thus, the reformers focused heavily on marriage and holding familial places as perfectly acceptable Christian things to do. While the Catholic Church promoted marriage as an outlet for child bearing and sexual pleasure (usually just for the man), the reformers focused more on a definition of marriage related to love and faithful companionship. Unlike Catholics, the reformation celebrated women’s roles as mothers and wives. 

Another interesting thing that was brand new to the times was educating women how to read, the bible. While women were now granted opportunities to education, this education merely amounted to “reading the Bible, managing a household and teaching the faith to their children.” (Kleihan). In fact, this form of education was hardly the door opening, life changing experience some may think. Sure, now women can read the bible, but rarely did this lead to them being able to pursue other forms of work. 

Given the education recieved by women, some would think that now they have more freedom to engage in other types of work, however, this is simply not the case. According to Dr. Kirsi Stjerna, 

“First of all, the reformers' visions for enhanced basic lay education for the sake of enabling laity to read their vernacular bibles did not really open doors for women in higher education. Even the basic education maintained a distinction between the sexes as girls' curricula tended to be less demanding, with shorter school days than boys' schooling. Higher education continued to be a privilege of men and of a relatively small group of wealthy and culturally well-connected women. Nothing even remotely equivalent in terms of educational opportunities for women replaced the convents in Protestant towns. In other words, women lacked the appropriate preparation for conventional theological writing.” (Stjerna).

Although women were granted a form of education, the desired result of society for such education seemed to simply be the better training and assimilation of women into Christian ideology that female bodied people ought to be housewives. 

So, in all, while the reformation did grant somewhat more of educational resources than before, these resources were often put towards teaching women to be housewives, not independent women. The reformation desired women to become housewives and mothers, not autonomous, free thinking, independents. 

(I know that was long but we are getting to the point.) 

Part 2: Given the “Option” 

Following from the evidence presented in Part 1, it can be easily seen that women, within the reformation era, were hardly presented with the freedom to chose what they wanted to be in society. Instead, women were effectively forced to become housewives and mothers. According to Stjerna,  “women's legitimate place was at home.” Women could not become bakers, academics, butchers, etc. . . The only viable choice for a women was either becoming a housewife, or to effectively be shunned. This is hardly a reasonable choice making environment. It would be as if someone held a gun to my head and gave me two options. 1: Die or 2: Lick that persons feet. We definitely would not call the gun holder an emancipator for giving me the option to lick their feet. After all, the only other available path is death. The only legitimate available option for women in the 16th century during the reformation was to become educated in the bible and become housewives and mothers. This is hardly a free autonomous choice if it is literally the only choice. 

Part 3: The “Gift” of Reading 

Some argue that it was because the reformation gave women an outlet to learn to read that such Women’s rights movements were helped made possible. This is a tricky statement to make since many other factors play into a women’s rights movement moving to fruition, but I think this is a fairly reasonable point to make. It is certainly true that learning to read is a good thing, but this was not because of the benevolence of the reformers. It was because the reformers wanted women to become better acquainted with a text and ideologies that were intended on making women better housewives and mothers. Would we say that a slave master teaching a slave to read the book “How to be a better slave” is liberating? Of course not. Here we see learning to read as a means of oppression. What we can say about learning to read is that women deceptively utilized such a newfound skill in order to become more educated and autonomous people. This was not because the reformers wanted them to be this way, but instead it was because women were utilizing the means of their own oppression to attempt to become free from it. 

This is all speculation of course but I do think, logically, it is fairly consistent. Women had to navigate the, clearly, oppressive space they were in and used their reading skills to become educated on other things down the line. So here, we are not to thank the reformers for this grand “gift,” but instead, we view the women as effectively tricking and exploiting the oppressive intentions of their reading skills, using them for other such things than learning to become better housewives. 

Sources: 

Dr. Kathryn Kleihans: https://www.livinglutheran.org/2015/09/women-reformation-now/

Dr. Kirsi Stjerna: https://www.elca.org/JLE/Articles/1145

[liberal-brainwashing-blog]

Understanding Science: Bill Nye & His SJW Agenda

I cannot help but feel ecstatic when I see the kinds of things the famed “science guy” is saying on his new Netflix special, “Bill Nye Saves The World.” When someone, on an incredibly popular platform, says something like “Gender is like sex, its on a spectrum,” for all the world to see, I feel excited, and assured that finally, someone is talking some logic, science, and common sense. Furthermore, Netflix is going as far as to “censoring” the older episodes of “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” because they are inconsistent with the new material explaining gender and sex. This frustrates some people because yet again, arm chair biology fans are still utterly convinced that gender & sex are biologically determined by XX and XY chromosomes, and that Netflix should not have taken off the previous conflicting episode. Here, I would like to discuss the issues people have with Bill Nye’s politics & Netflix’s “censorship.” 

Part 1: Biology’s Liberal Bias 

I have to find it somewhat interesting that, traditionally, the “right” has used their strange, cherry picked version of biology to determine whether or not people’s identities are legitimate, what they are worth, and if they should have any say in society. Almost like the way Christians use the bible, the “right” tends to love to use biology only when it is their favor. For one thing, “right” winged people love to spout how women are just biologically weaker than men. The only reason being to constantly repeat this is to in some way create superiority among “sexes.” Now, this may be a biological fact, if we are at least talking about cis-women and cis-men, but the picture becomes much more complicated when we incorporate trans-women, trans-men, & the gender non-conforming. And as a quick side note, these strength differences, especially in a modern society (specifically North America), are not so present to create any real difference in who should do what kind of work. In fact, its completely ironic how the “right” is for such a “free market” to which people work the jobs they want, and yet attempts to dictate entirely what kinds of positions women should work in. 

The “right” is so willing to bring up certain aspects of biology but completely disregard others that tend to conflict with their ideological beliefs. For example, the “reality” that people with penis’s are men and people with vaginas are women. There does not exist a single scientific study to which top scientists come to the conclusion that “a person with a penis is a man” or “a person with a vagina is a women.” These are taxonomic issues, not issues of biology. Furthermore, the human body has far more sex differentiated features than simply a penis or vagina. It is not a fact that XY and XX chromosomes are female and male. These are simply labels, which are not, at all, empirical facts. Now, revising such terms of male and female, does not at all change the biological realities already present. But people tend to think so, which is, ridiculous. Truth is, every human body has both estrogen and testosterone, which, at various levels, create certain sex differentiated features. This being the case, the presence of XX or XY chromosomes in a transgender or gender-nonconforming person, make no practical difference when it comes to some form of transition. Now some people may say, “well that trans-women only has breasts because of her use of estrogen, its not real.” However, clearly, all sex differentiated features utilize hormones. This information is all, one hundred percent, congruent with the status biology as a whole. Indeed biology seems to be a little more “left” leaning than the “right” wants it to. But, it seemed to always be like that. 

Part 2: Netflix’s Authoritarian Censorship

“Right” wing internet goers seem to completely hate that such an episode detailing a dated, and wrong, view of biology and gender, has been removed from Netflix because Bill Nye’s new information presentation contradicts it. This is how information, and better ideas work. In fact, Netflix, here, is doing something completely more scientific than any of these “new” conservatives think they are. Something is suddenly wrong on Netflix’s platform, so Netflix takes it down. Netflix, here, is being academically responsible. People seem to hate that however, because now, Netflix of all things, is discrediting a poor view of biology and gender. All of the sudden, conservative internet people are being de-legitimatized in their wrong view, this must be the bias of Netflix. 

When information is deemed wrong on a platform that holds information contradicting it, the previous, wrong, information should be taken down. It is truly a shame that now people can’t look to Bill Nye as the last bastion of biological essentalism, when, in fact, the biology these people are talking about, is not even real biology. Biology has left these people in the dust since the very first moment in time. How sad. 

The fact of the matter is, gender misunderstanding and biology confused bullies are just getting their underwear in a twist because they don’t understand these topics. Let progress rein. Netflix is not “censoring” itself. It is maintaining a level of academic and ideological honesty among its programs. And we should encourage it to do more of that.

When people describe all the “gender politics” used in Bill Nye’s new show, it usually comes with a tinge of “this sjw nonsense is ridiculous.” When the case, truly, is that Bill Nye has learned more than he had in his previous show. He is presenting a better, more accurate, description of sex and gender. Get over it. 

Sources: 

http://genderanalysis.net/2015/12/chromosomes-cis-expectations-vs-trans-reality-gender-analysis-14/

http://genderanalysis.net/2015/06/stop-calling-trans-women-male-gender-analysis-07/

(Boy isn’t Zinnia Jones amazing?)

[liberal-brainwashing-blog]

The White Gaze of Modern Black Comedy

If you are like me, you have witnessed the intense love of black comedians by typically young white male adults (and just as so white adolescents). If you are like me, you remember watching these comedians at a young age dying laughing at the stories about black people, poor black people, rich black people, “niggas,” and of course white people. As a white boy growing up in the wealthy part of Oakland, I found these white caricatures absolutely hilarious (which they still are). The well speaking cracker who is the epitome of a suburban dad, manager, and more generally a white man, striked me as funny and entertaining. Finding these jokes so funny, and continuing to listen to the other parts of typical stand up routines by famous black comedians like Dave Chappelle & Chris Rock, I found myself laughing at their other jokes specifically about black people. The stories about the projects, the pimps, the gang members, the drug addicted, etc. . . In fact, I found some of the “best” material to be that which mocks black people. Why is this? In this informal essay I would like to explore my own prejudices, the prejudices of white folks around me, and why white people just love black comedy so much.

Part 1: These so called “Niggas”

In one of the most famous Chris Rock bits, C.R., in some detail, outlines the differences between certain forms of black people. He describes there being two classifications of black people; normal black people & “niggas.” Chris Rock states that he loves black people, he has nothing against black people, but he just absolutely cannot stand “niggas.” To begin, I think it would be fair to say that every single white person watching the stand up special up to this point has just gotten a jolt of energies in their hearts, and butterflies in their stomach. Suddenly, a presentation is being performed in front of you that can affirm your racist thoughts. This is exactly what I was thinking when I was younger. I cannot speak for every single white person, but it would be fair to say that I am not the only white person experiencing this. In fact, in our racially biased society, I find it fair to say that the majority of white people thought this way. Suddenly, a black person on television, is saying things along the lines of “I can’t stand niggas,” “Niggas ruin everything,” and other such phrases and punchlines to which the crowd went ballistic. This specific joke, again, is by black people, for black people. This is a critique, in coded language, of the black community, by the black community, for the black community, through an oppressed viewpoint. White people, seem to misinterpret and misunderstand this. When white people see a black person do anything seemingly “problematic,” suddenly white people feel free in their bigotry towards black people. As put by Norma Schulman, “Some of their cryptic, coded references may be clear to outsiders-like the numerous allusions on Comicview to “Moms” Mabley or Rodney King-but others-like host D. L. Hughley’s recurrent “I want some chicken”-are not” (Schulman). The codes here, within Chris Rock’s joke, seems to be utterly unclear to white listeners and instead, confirm their own race based prejudice. If black people hate “niggas,” then, to the white viewer, they can just as legitimately engage in such racism. I certainly felt this way when I was growing up and it would be more than fair to say others probably did too. Suddenly I am not racist, I don’t hate black people, I just hate those “niggas.” If you read that last sentence and thinks that sounds utterly ridiculous and bigoted, I agree with you one hundred percent. After all, if you laugh at that joke, you are effectively co-signing its truth within yourself. From a white perspective, you hate “niggas.” This is how white people view critiques of communities by those who exist within such communities. Similar to the popular Youtuber Blaire White, Blaire offers misguided and poor information mocking transgender people, while being a transgender woman herself. Cis gendered people watch her show, see the poor info she is stating, and take it as a way to legitimize their own transphobia. Now, the difference between Blaire White & Chris Rock is discourse created by Chris Rock to outline oppressed groups; as Blaire White, simply oppresses groups. But this distinction to the white, or cisgendered (or usually both), is not unclear and views such information as fact. A black person hates “niggas,” I guess I’m not alone (and not racist!).

Part 2: The Nature of Black Comedy

Some of you are probably reading this and think I am totally misunderstanding, and importance of the nature of comedy. To which I would say, you are misunderstanding the nature of black comedy. According to Schulman, “Its humor is double edged, mixing rebellion against (racial) oppression with the playful self-deprecation of black people and black culture” (Schulman). The problem with the white gaze observing such self-deprecating comedy, is that it is misunderstood almost as gospel and a reassurance of pre-existing prejudice. Instead of “playful self-deprecation” to not be taken seriously, white viewers think these jokes are, well, serious. I would like to make clear that this is not the black comedians fault, after all, this is comedy for black people, the black community, and not white people. Similar things happen when black comedians mock white people. To me, when I watched a white caricature portrayed by these black comedians, I thought to myself, “Hey that’s funny! White people are totally like that! Good thing I’m not racist like that.” When watching these comedians, white people play somewhat of a trick on themselves. This has the similar effect of white people viewing racism solely as a KKK member or a Nazi. However, as we all know, racism and racist ideologies do not only exist within such polarizing examples. Just as so, the white caricatures presented by black comedians are not an attempt to cover all of the possible forms racist ideology can take place, instead it is simply a simple caricature, a meme. White people misinterpret these jokes as a standard of racism that, if they do not meet it, then they are not racist. Completely fooling themselves while laughing at black caricatures that, to them, confirm their racial biases.

Part 3: Some Jokes Are Not For You

Arguments are made for most, if not all, black art forms that such art form is not meant to include white people. I do not think this is true, but I do think white people need to tread lightly and be cautious as to what they consume, laugh at, enjoy, and appropriate. For example, white people laughing at the white caricatures, besides the little trick they play on themselves, seems totally appropriate. White people laughing at all the problems with “niggas,” does not. As white enjoyers of black culture, we must be careful as to what is taken seriously, and what is not. Continually being critical of your own biases is crucial here. White people can indeed support and enjoy black art forms, but they must be careful as to why they are enjoying certain things. As a quick example related to this paper, why is Chris Rock’s bit about the separation of blacks from “niggas” funny to you as a white viewer? Clearly this joke is not meant for white individuals and white communities, so why is it funny to you?

Sources:

Norma Schulman (1994) The House that Black Built: Television Standup Comedy as Minor Discourse, Journal of Popular Film and Television, 22:3, 108-115, DOI: 10.1080/01956051.1994.9943675

[liberal-brainwashing-blog]

Ann Coulter & the Cries of Liberal Fascism

Recently, Ann Coulter was supposed to speak at the Berkeley Campus of the University of California (CAL). However, due to recent violent outbreaks between event goers (specifically people protesting right wing ideas & people who like right wing ideas), UC Berkeley has decided to cancel the talk for fear of another violent outburst. That sounds reasonable enough to me. A school cancels a talk due to the fear of a violent clash between event goers. Ann Coulter will then, not be speaking at the campus. We can all go about our day.

However, Ann Coulter seems to find this as a blatant war cry in the liberals battle against free speech. In fact, Ms. Coulter seems to believe that in order to combat the militantly liberal anti-free speech fascist insurgency, she must disobey the decision of the University of California, and hold her talk anyway. 

To begin, not even critiquing Ann’s utterly backwards and xenophobic views in her book “Adios America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole,” disrespecting a space like that is an incredibly rude thing to do. It is as if a Professor told me that I can no longer give my lecture because of schedule conflicts or even because some of the information in my lecture is faulty, and I show up anyway because I am here to fight for my right to free speech. UC Berkeley gave Ann Coulter a platform and they can take it away if they please to do so. Fox News, and general other republicans, seem to be so focused with this taking away of a platform and calling it anti-free speech. So what are we then to call the granting of such platform? Ann didn’t have the platform to speak at CAL in the first place until CAL granted her permission. If she was not ever granted permission in the first place is CAL anti-free speech? Of course not. UC Berkeley offers platforms for people to speak and share their thoughts. If UC Berkeley thinks it would be a bad idea if a certain person spoke on their campus (especially if it would possibly incite violence), then UC Berkeley can and should take that platform away (especially if it’s someone as backwards as Ann Coulter). 

Now, onto the critique of Ann Coulter’s beliefs (and Jesus Christ are they poorly founded). The main argument Ann Coulter makes in her gripping novel is that the reason Democrats want more lenient immigration policies is so that they can receive more voters. Clearly, this is an extremely moronic and naive idea. It would be as if once the U.S is less strict on immigration thanks to the Democratic party, the majority of Mexican immigrants (these are the immigrants Ann is talking about), will suddenly drop their Catholic dominated, pro-life, pro-family, anti-gay, anti-women social views and thank their wonderful Democrat saviors. Not only this, but Ann Coulter, repeatedly in the book, paints Mexican immigrants as rapists, murderers, and so on. Someone may be reading this and say, “well Leo, those people actually did do that! Not all Mexican people are those things, but those Mexicans did do that!” To which I would say, I am not denying the existence of those crimes, I am merely stating that Ann is painting an utterly flawed, sensationalized view of Mexican immigrants. Her rhetorical strategy is to strike fear in the heart of the white american by using similar strategies used within the old Klan movie “Birth of a Nation,” depicting “black men” raping white women and so on. Her strategy is to scare white people that the scary Mexicans are stealing their jobs, raping their women, and killing white people. That sounds just like we are back in 1915 and afraid of black people, but instead, we replace them with Mexican immigrants (but don’t be confused here, white people are still very much afraid of black people). 

So, given the recent campus history regarding violent outburst between protestors and right wing advocates, I think it is beyond fine that Ann Coulter is not speaking at UC Berkeley. This is not an act of aggression on free speech, it is simply UC Berkeley being smart organizers. 

[liberal-brainwashing-blog]

Another Post about 13 Reasons Why

People have an issue with the Netflix adaptation of the novel “13 Reasons Why.” 

From what I can tell, by AJ+, Buzzfeed, etc. . ., there are 2 reasons people don’t like 13 Reasons Why. 

1. It is triggering to those who are far too familiar with suicide (be it they have experienced trauma from their friends committing suicide, parents doing so, or even attempted it themselves). 

2. It glorify’s suicide. 

I would like to argue why I think (2) is misguided and (1) makes some sense but has it’s issues. Let’s start with (2). 

There is a very interesting, and blurred, line between what is glorification and what is simply information. To not get too bogged down by semantics, I’d like to argue that the attempts to show Hannah Baker’s issues throughout the tapes, and the lessons learned from such tapes by Hannah’s classmates, is not an effort to glorify her suicide. 

A key example is the ending, in that this is not exactly a cumbia ending. Not only does everyone not learn a lesson from Hannah’s suicide, but some people even still reject her notions of her bullying and harassment. People do not come together and learn and love at the end, some do, but some totally don’t. Her suicide is not glorified here because some people in the show, yes even the main antagonist, simply still does not give a straight shit about her suicide. 

Another reason why I think people view this as glorification is because they are using Hannah’s suicide as a “plot device.” While there exist a fair amount of movies that use such horrible actions as “plot devices,” some of these movies actually use these actions quite well and shed light onto these tragic issues. Besides, calling something a “plot device” is not an argument against it. Even the movies who use these actions well and highlight these issues are using them as plot devices, after all, they are a part of the plot of the movie. 

Furthermore, people seem to misunderstand what this show is about. Yes, the story is told through Hannah’s tapes, but the purpose of such tapes is to show what factors played into her bullying which eventually led to her suicide (right??). This show is more of a commentary of the grander societal issues people face that may push them to suicidal thoughts or even committing suicide. This show isn’t just about Hannah and her death, it’s about the issues teenagers may face that would lead them to commit such actions. 

Now, let’s talk about (1). I have seem time and again people say that people should not watch this because it is triggering for those who have dealt with such issues. I think this critique is valid but misses the point of having such discussions and representation of such victims. If we are really to believe the argument that 13 Reasons Why is a bad show because it is triggering to those who have experienced such trauma, then why do we even hold such conferences and have such discussions in the first place? As someone who has been to numerous “social justice” conferences it is ALWAYS clear that the information about to be discussed is triggering. This is the point of a trigger warning, to warn that such issues will be discussed and it might be hard for some. These topics are not easy to discuss, this is simply a fact. If we are to believe we should not watch such shows or be exposed to such information because it is triggering, then we should end all discussion of such issues in all circles because it is trigger. If you think this is utterly ridiculous, I agree with you. Now, if you have issue with suicide and have trauma surrounding the subject, by no means would I ever force someone to watch it. I am not the arbiter of culture here, don’t watch the show if you think it will cause you harm. However, given the innate “hardness” of these subjects, it will never be so easy to discuss these things, and just because it is hard to talk about does not mean it should not be talked about. 

[liberal-brainwashing-blog]

Pedantic Scapegoats: Racism and Language

Lately I was engaged in a Facebook conversation with another friend of mine. Here is the situation. 

The post was originally a meme I had shared from the meme page “Marxist Memes” to which the picture was calling into question the ethics of liberal democrats using the, what I will call, “Unwanted Labor Argument” to defend immigration reform. While this was conveyed through humorous means, a friend of mine felt it necessary to engage in conversation strictly about how we can use robots to pick fruit/ vegetables and other such things (for, well, whatever reason). 

Another friend of mine, who studies computer science and just happens to be Mexican, begins to argue that it would not be such an easy task to implement some robotic workers into certain fields, as all vegetables and fruits do not grow the same. My other friend, the one who initially started the argument, decides that the person thinking about other complicated ways in which robots would do manual labor is simply complicating the situation because they are Mexican and all Mexicans do field labor right? It is a part of Mexican peoples heritage to pick in the fields right? Of course not. I step in and call out the comment for what it is, racist. I said my friend was implying that my other friend had ties to field work because he is Mexican. To which my friend, who made the racist comment, decides to pedantically pick apart what it means for someone to have “ties” to something. An absurdly pedantic argument utterly deflecting from the real problem, you said something racist. 

This seems to happen far to often when someone is accused of saying something racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. Instead of acknowledging the real problem it suddenly becomes apparent that “no I did not say anything wrong, it is what you are saying that is wrong. Here is why the word you chose does not make sense.” 

This, along with other seemingly stupid tactics, are used typically by people who just cannot get it through their thick skull that they said something or did something problematic. Usually, well in my experience, white straight cis men (hey just like me!). It seems like a safe scapegoat right? Make it seem like the other person is insinuating something you claim to not be thinking? How ridiculous. You may be reading this thinking, “well, what if the other person is right? What if you are insinuating something that is not there?” To which I say, I cannot speak for others, but I trust that they are making the correct decision when calling someone out on something problematic. Besides, I am sure I am not alone in such annoying scenarios. 

So, I am writing this post to say that if anyone ever decides to engage in discussion about racism, and someone pedantically nit picks your usage of a certain word or phrase to deflect from the real issue at hand, leave. 

[liberal-brainwashing-blog]

Dirt Man & Rib Woman

I am considering writing some satirical short stories about the Bible’s creation story utilizing Adam & Eve in possible modern contexts. Not sure if good idea, all I know is I heard Zinnia Jones use this phrase and I think it is hilarious. 

[liberal-brainwashing-blog]

13 Reason Why You Should Shut the Fuck Up

I have seen a lot of criticism on the recently blossoming Netflix special based on the novel Thirteen Reasons Why. A lot of the criticism is related to the main character “Hannah” and that she is just an utterly selfish dick. Furthermore, people claim the show glorifies teen suicide to which the worry would be that many teens watching the show now think its cool to commit suicide or self harm. 

I find this to be utterly ridiculous. It is as if simply bringing up suicide glorifies it and creates the problem. This is the same argument used by Republicans when stating that those who bring up racism are the real problem, not the racists. A show cannot show a plot with suicide with some form of justice or commentary on the nature of bullying in high schools and suicide because it is said to glorify suicide. You mention the realities of suicide, you suddenly become an advocate for suicide. How ridiculous. 

This is the same critique brought to William S. Burroughs Novel “Naked Lunch.” It is because he utilizes his former heroin addiction to create some form of post-modern commentary that he is now advocating for the use of heroin and glorifying heroin use. What a ridiculous, narrow minded, right winged, uncritical view of the realities of living. 

So here are my 13 reasons why your critique on suicide victims is obnoxious. 

1. Presenting on Suicide is not a Glorification of It 

2. People have the Right to Die (omg Leo is glorifying death!)

3. Fuck Off

4. Fuck Off 

5. Fuck Off

6. Fuck You

7. Fucking Fuck You

8. Fuck Off

9. Isn’t this joke funny? 

10. Fuck You

11. Fuck You

12. Fuck Off

13. Narratives of Suicide Victims are not Problematic or Encourage Suicide

[liberal-brainwashing-blog]

Rubber Bullets: Authenticity and Parody

Clicking on a recent SOB X RBE music video, mainly by vocalist Yhung T.O, titled “On My Momma,” one will immediately notice a warning sign. This specific sign alerts the viewer that any supposedly illegal looking “props” used within the video are indeed fake and are not to be of any concern. These “props” the sign is referring to is, what looks like, a glock pistol. In fact, there are multiple glocks within this video to which the participants wave around, point at the camera, and hold in stern positions (meaning to evoke threat or the reality of their realness). As an avid Hip-Hop fan, this seems like a pretty normal music video, except for the warning.

Slim Jesus is a drill rapper from Ohio. With his most famous video and song being “Drill Time,” Jesus shook the drill scene as a white rapper who does not appear to really live the drill life. He certainly spits like a drill rapper, utilizing the iconic drill vocal pattern, using notable drill vocabulary, and speaking about how “a lot of y’all just twitter flex but this shit aint just a fucking rap.” Given this hilarious anomaly within the drill scene, Slim Jesus quickly gained some fame and a little bit of time in the spotlight. However, this illumination of Jesus’s life ended up drilling him in the ass. Slim Jesus made a mistake in creating the ever so popular music video for “Drill Time,” he put a warning sign in the beginning of the video, for similar reasons as SOB X RBE; there are guns in the video.

In an interview with Slim Jesus, Jesus spilled the beans. All of these things he said he was doing in his songs like trapping and robbing was a lie. He created this drill music because he liked the sound; he wanted to participate in the awesome Hip-Hop sub genre of drill music. This being the case, as you can imagine, his credibility was destroyed. Slim Jesus turned out to be a one hit wonder who just seemed like a white boy in his backyard with his airsoft gun wanting to make rap music like Lil Reese or King Louis; people who have actually, and may still, live such a violent and street life.

SOB X RBE, hailing from Vallejo, and with such consignment as Mozzy, a Sacramento rapper from the notorious O-Park, SOBE X RBE seems to be highly street credible. Their songs, similar to Slim Jesus’s, discuss issues of violence, robbery, and murder. However, in “On My Momma,” this real act appears to be dropped in a similar way Slim Jesus did so in “Drill Time.” This can be explained either two ways.

One: Protecting Yourself from the Law

Plane and simple people within the SOB X RBE music video for “On My Momma” could very plausibly have pending legal cases or do not want to get caught up in another case. Some may be on probation and being seen holding a fire-arm can be extremely incriminating.

Two: Authenticity is Second to Success

SOB X RBE may not care what so ever about looking authentic to their claimed street life and admit that this might just be all an act. They are becoming far more famous and popular now in 2017 and distancing ones self from danger and controversy while still keeping the image close is positive for marketing.

It has been a common debate among music fans, music creators, music critics, and music scholars that the idea that music must be authentic to real lived experience. If it is not, for example Slim Jesus, the music seems fake, contrived, and preposterous. However, if they really are living “that life,” then the music is authentic, real, soulful, experiential, honest, and true.

Seeing SOB X RBE put a warning sign at the beginning of their music video, something seldom seen within the Hip-Hop community, calls into question their authenticity in the same way Slim Jesus’s authenticity was called into question. Whether SOB X RBE likes it or not, they might get called out or put on the spot for such video. However SOB X RBE responds may or may not change the outcome of their careers. However, with such consignment as Mozzy and other notable Northern California rappers, it would appear such an exposing act would not matter. For one thing, SOB X RBE’s music is far catchier, radio friendly, and more popular than drill time within their respective scenes. Slim Jesus has effectively lost his fame and credibility while SOB X RBE are on the rise to what seems like the top. If SOB X RBE really are faking this street act, I do not think anyone will care (I certainly won’t, I love their music).

Authenticity only matters when something sounds bad. Since Slim Jesus’s “Drill Time,” was not exactly the banger of the century, Slim Jesus fell off given community scrutiny. SOB X RBE are not only supported by large names in the game, but they are cranking out hit after hit after hit after hit. Their possible “fakeness” sounds great beyond question of authenticity.