#and also does present genuine critique of society

[grendelsmilf]

I'm sure I'll come off as stupid here, but what is Harrison Bergeron satirizing, do you think? I haven't revisited it since high school but I thought it was pretty libertarian, like "equality makes people stupid!"

that is literally what he is satirizing, yes

[zagreuses-toast]

I come from a place of sheer curiousity and I just wanna ask genuinely- you say that you're a fan of 13s/ the chibnall era. Why? Doctor who is my favourite show and I've connected with every incarnation deeply and immediately, but have never been able to "click" with 13, despite my best efforts. What is it that you like about her? What is it that you like about chibnalls writing? I want to know and I want to like her/it too, but as of right now, I just... don't. Obviously you're not obligated to, but can you explain why?

Ok so this ended up being a Long Post, so I'm putting my response under the read more. Also I'm assuming you've actually watched the Chibnall era up to The Power of The Doctor, if you haven't then heads up for spoilers and stuff that might not make much sense without context.

Oh and I'm gonna @ @rearranging-deck-chairs and @ssaalexblake because I see their DW opinions all the time and they're really good and they can probably give more nuanced answers on some things. (Idk how well I did on explaining why I liked some of them, and it really is up to personal preference on some things)

Thirteen herself:

There are a lot of reasons I like Chibnalls era, but one of the biggest ones out the gate is definitely Jodie and her acting in the role of the Doctor. I think the way she balances bouncy gregariousness with the colder more angry and mean aspects of the Doctor is great. She does this thing where she can just make her eyes go dead and then smile like it's a threat, like she's gonna bite, especially when going up against villains. It's great. And Jodie herself is a delightful person.

Beyond just physical acting choices, I find the thirteenth Doctors struggle between her anger and secrecy, vs her desire to connect and her joy at life very very compelling. She keeps this distance that's really interesting I think, where she's genuinely attached to and trying to be a friend to the Fam, but still trying to keep her whole past out of the deal, which doesn't work that well, as we see in s12 and Flux. She's surrounded by death and haunted by the knowledge of how little time she has with her friends, (Grace, and she just came back from bill) but she still wants and needs that connection, and she learns to live in the present a bit. I made a whole post about her final regeneration speech here. I love her arc a lot even if it hurts. Also she's such a horrible hypocrite about so many things, which also makes her a fun character to rotate in my head and study like a bug. I do see it as being on purpose, some people seem to think it's just bad writing that she contradicts herself but imo that's a big part of her character.

Chibnalls writing:

I personally like the timeless child plot because :

There are a lot of stories and ideas in the Chibnall era I like, and a lot more I find very compelling. Whatever your opinions on the writing (and I definitely have had a lot of critique for some bits), there were a lot of ideas introduced that were fun and interesting. One of the weaker points of the era IMO is having so much fun stuff set up, but only shallowly or quickly exploring it, and then adding more stuff on top.

A lot of things didn't get the exploration/screen time I thought they deserved (especially characterization and interaction/dialogue wise). But that just gives my brain more to chew on at the end of the day, and I do love what was done during the seasons itself, not just all the potential stuff.

1) I can connect with it, I know Chibnall was coming at it from a place of being an adoptee, but as a native person the story of a kid taken and raised into an imperial/colonial society, who had their history stolen and their body exploited to further that societies ends, hits very close to home.

And 2) I have a "everything is true at once" approach to canon and I think the more origin stories we make for the Doctor the funnier it is.

This era had a lot of repeating themes, ideas that showed up and we're explored in a lot of different circumstances, often with a rule of 3 aspect to it. One is themes of Empire and Exploitation. Particularly through the stenza in s11 (empire using up planets, introduced to us basically doing foxhunts for clout, but with People instead of foxes), the dalek specials, the Cybermen in s12, and Division/the timelords in flux (as well as the sontarans &co).

Within that there's the repeating motif of how by exploiting people or their beliefs for power the imperial power/bad guys sew the seeds of their destruction. From Tzim Sha using the Ux and them turning against him, to the Division being destroyed by the Ravagers, who they tried to use to get rid of the Doctor/the old universe (and the doctor and even the master going rogue in the first place). Hell even Kerblam! (I know I know) Has a version, where the AI system being used to do terrible things is the one to call the doctor for help!

Another standout are themes of breaking cycles, Ryan is estranged from his dad and was distancing himself from Graham, but they both put in the work and grow extremely close over their two seasons. He also chooses to leave the TARDIS when he realizes he's absent from his friend's lives and wants to be present. And the Doctor gets to break the cycle of exploitation that Tecteun started, when she meets a vulnerable being with mysterious power (the energy being from TPOTD) she helps it free itself, on a way she wasn't helped.

Individual character stuff:

Going again into more individual character stuff I love, I've gotta give it to Sacha Dhawan for being a fucking superb Master. His acting is bonkers amazing and he does a great job portraying the sorta huge personal crisis the master is going through, and externalizing via evil schemes. At the end of Twelves run we saw Missy try to be like the doctor, to get her friend back (and even succeed a bit) but end up dying for it. Now we come back to a master who died trying to be like the person they see as their only equal, and has discovered (wrongly) that they were never equal to begin with, that the doctor is so much more than them. So he tries to make her like him instead, and If she won't become like him and kill them both along with the rest of gallifrey, then he will become her properly this time (by body snatching), ruin her legacy, and die with her eventually (overtaking her in the same way his whole existance has now been caused/overtaken by the doctor in his eyes, because of her being the source of regeneration)

Also can we talk about the Yaz?? I've been dying to talk about Yaz!!! I love her a lot and I find her fascinating, shes probably my favorite companion based on just sheer amount of time spent Thinking about her. Her doctorification/character arc is so good

Yaz is into the travelling and saving the day lifestyle the Doctor gives her for the responsibility of it all, for feeling useful and capable and good. Her early characterization Monet's include her complaining about not having more interesting jobs as a cop because she wants responsibility, she wanted to be important and helpful (that's the entire reason she became a cop, to help people like she was helped when she was in a dark place, and she finds a better way of doing that with the Doctor). And she GETS THERE, narratively and on a character level, she spends three years on earth with her own companions! She co-pilots the TARDIS and can fly her herself! She saves the day when the master steals the doctors body! And most of all SHES EXTREMELY SAD AT THE END BECAUSE THE PERSON SHE LOVES DIED BEFORE HER!! JUST LIKE THE DOCTOR !! (ugly crying) (I could write a whole other post about thasmin, good and bad, but a lot of people have put it better than me)

Also, I'm a big TARDIS girlie, she has somehow ended up being one of my favorite characters in doctor who, and the chinball era does so much fun stuff with the TARDIS!! Different writers take different approaches to the TARDIS, and how alive vs inanimate, or how active vs passive she is. I think the Chinball era had something special in terms of the way the TARDIS was depicted, and I loved it a lot. We never really get to see past the control room but it's a gorgeous control room! And throughout the era the TARDIS just feels so alive, it's always humming and beeping and chirping, I especially love the moments when the lights change color to match the doctors mood (mostly to blue, for sadness, sometimes red to yell at that dalek that one time). And speaking of the doctor, starting with ghost monument thirteen has a bunch of sweet moments of banter or just ~emotions~ with the TARDIS. I genuinely teared up a bit when she entrusted the timeless child memories to the TARDIS,and before her regeneration speech when she asked the TARDIS to look after her. Because who can she trust with her past AND her future except her oldest truest friend.

I could add a lot more of specific things from the era I love (solitract my beloved) but I think this is getting long enough as is lol.

[sokkastyles]

I have, on a few separate occasions recently, seen the phrase "toxic boymom" used about Ursa, and aside from the fact that it's coming from the usual crowd of Azula apologists, I found it hard to articulate why I found that uncomfortable until I read more about the phrase, which seems to have originated on tiktok.

Oh, I could already pretty much guess what these "toxic boymoms" were like, and I'm not contesting that it's toxic (and sometimes abusive) parenting.

But there's also a certain undercurrent of misogyny present that actually hits the nail on the head with why I don't like seeing the term applied to Ursa.

I mean, aside from the fact that Ursa is nothing like these moms that openly admit to loving their sons more than their daughters (the claim that Ursa favored Zuko and neglected Azula can't be supported by the actual show), a lot of the critiques tend to focus on why it's toxic for the wrong reasons, and this is hardly surprising considering how much pressure society puts on mothers.

I saw, in particular, the claim that the reason this kind of parenting is toxic is because "he won't be emotionally mature enough to support his mother when he's older."

It makes me think of the term "momma's boy," and how there's often an insulting connotation there. The idea that a boy who is too close to his mother won't be able to grow into a "man" the way society says a man should be.

Of course, the goal of every parent should be to raise children that are emotionally mature enough to be their own person. I'm not arguing that there aren't parents who treat their children in ways that are genuinely toxic and even abusive by being too emotionally enmeshed, but I do have to question this toxic boymom thing when the focus seems to be on gender expectations. Especially when I see it applied to Ursa, whose only real crime was to try to protect Zuko from abuse as much as she could, to emotionally shield him in ways that he deserved to be shielded, and to teach him to be kind.

There's a certain undercurrent here that seeks to pathologize Zuko's emotional vulnerability as a child, to make it something wrong or some harm done to him by his mother. especially when contrasted with the gendered expectations of his militaristic nation and violent father. And combined with the fact that the abuse Zuko experienced from his father and sister centered around him being seen as weaker, it comes across as blaming Ursa for Zuko's abuse for "making him that way," for not teaching him how to be a real man (Ozai makes it pretty clear how he thinks Zuko should be raised when he says "suffering will be your teacher"), or for being too involved (see also Ozai using Zuko's attachment to his mother against him in DOBS because he knows it's something he can use to hurt him).

In any case, Zuko's story actually does a really interesting thing with the way his mom influenced him by having him take his heroic inspiration from his mom in a way usually reserved for dads in stories, when they aren't hyperviolent abusers like Ozai. It does this in a couple of ways, by having Ursa be Zuko's inspiration for "not giving up even when it's hard," and also helping him to remember who he is. Two things that Zuko does grapple with before really figuring them out. In the beginning, his tendency to not give up led him to get into some pretty dangerous situations and made him self-destructive, and when he remembered who he was in the Earth Kingdom village, they were less than impressed with receiving help from a Fire Nation prince. But once he does figure it out, he takes those lessons and uses them to build a more positive sense of self.

In conclusion, Ursa isn't a toxic boymom.

[catgirl-kaiju]

How is tme/tma more inclusive than afab/amab? They both equate something to a binary that makes an assumption about someone’s genitalia. In a personal level, I dislike either set of labels, which makes it hard for me to see how one is more inclusive. I have Klinefelter syndrome and consider myself leaning toward a more feminine nonbinary identity. But because of living circumstances, I can’t change anything about my presentation. This to me makes it seem like I’d be labeled as tme and amab under those labeling systems because I’m not in a position where people clock me as trans fem. I have been mistaken as trans masc a couple times because of my gynecomastia, but im not. This is just a personal opinion but the labeling systems seem reductive to me and don’t seem to do much good. Not to mention how many times I’ve seen labels used to drive a wedge between the trans community. Not trying to be rude here, I am genuinely curious as to why you think the one set is more inclusive than the other? Sorry for this chunk of text, have a good day or night

-Dee

hi there, Dee

you're welcome to disagree with me, but here's my thoughts:

firstly, the agab model is still a pretty decent way of talking about trans identities, but it certainly has some problems for intersex folks. overtly, there's nothing actually tying amab or afab labels to genitals as we're just talking about the arbitrary gender label some doctor slapped on you at birth. and the ways that your experiences were shaped by that labeling are important in discussing the dynamics of gender even in the realm of cisgender people. i'm intersex, but i'm also amab. my body was close enough to the arbitrary grouping of "male" when i was born that some doctor saw fit to assign that label to me. the reality is that people are expected to fit in one of two boxes and if your body deviates from that, usually doctors will try and squeeze you into the box that's "closest enough" in hopes that you'll eventually fit in there.

however, since all of us have grown up in a society where intersex people are stigmatized and the perisex sex binary is normalized, the terms "female" and "male" are pretty loaded and carry a lot of assumptions about people's bodies. someone who is afab wasn't necessarily born with a uterus, and someone who is amab might not at all resemble a "male" as an adult. the complexities of biological sex therefore make the agab model useful in some contexts, but not in others. it can be useful when talking about gender, but it is less useful when talking about biology.

and here's the thing about tma/tme: it's not at all about your genitals in any way. it's barely even about your body. i really don't understand where this notion that tme/tma are "just another binary grouping based on genitalia" comes from, as there's nothing in the language to indicate that. all the tme/tma system is meant to describe is whether you are affected by transmisogyny or not. that's it. you can absolutely make an argument that some people might be affected by transmisogyny more, or less, or in different ways, or in some contexts but not others. but none of that has anything to do with genitals. i have seen no convincing argument that these labels reinforce sex binaries or gender binaries, as these are labels intended purely for the purposes of discussing the dynamics of transmisogyny and how different groups of people are and aren't affected by it.

like the only thing we're talking abt here is if your experiences are in any way affected by transmisogyny or not. that's it. what exactly does that have to do with what genitals someone has or was born with??? i'm intersex, i have a micropenis and have since birth, and i think you'd be fighting an uphill battle to try and argue that i am not affected by transmisogyny. if you want to critique the system's utility in discussing transmisogyny, i'm perfectly willing to engage with you on that. if you're arguing that whether or not someone is tme or tma is sometimes contextual, i'm totally willing to hear you out. if you want to talk about the possibility of an afab intersex person being tma, we can talk about that. but trying to claim that tme and tma are just a reproduction of the binary sex and/or binary gender paradigms is just not backed up by anything, imo.

i hope you're also having a good day or night, genuinely. i don't want you to think i have anything against you personally, but it's also very important to me to voice my honest disagreement here.

[dazedpuppydairies]

Sometimes I feel conversations surrounding ace-spec and aro-spec experiences are presented to monolithic. Of course I'm not referring to when people are specifically describing their own experience; however, when speaking about the communities as a whole I wish there was more emphasis on the diversity of experiences amongst ace and aro people. I'm not saying this is always an issue in ace and aro spaces, but it has negatively affected me personally. If this isn't something that you've noticed that's fair. Maybe this is a niche topic, not sure.

For example when people broadly say aromantic people don't date that generalization feels exclusionary to me. A lot of aromantic people myself included do date and even if most aromantic people don't date it doesn't make that generalization a good representation of the community as a whole. I have a similar issue when people broadly say asexuals don't have sex. My friend's old partner one time essentially harassed me in my own discord server for identifying as a sex favorable asexual because I was apparently misrepresenting the community. She also repeatedly told me it just sounded like I'm demisexual.

Though I don't personally identify as demisexual or demiromantic myself I do have the impression this issue is part of why demi people are often so othered. I've noticed this in the ace community especially, demisexuals are sometimes othered and seemingly seen as kind of separate from the ace community. I think this is also because demisexuality is a very misunderstood identity too. I just wanted to highlight demi erasure because I think it's a part of this conversation even though I'm not demi myself.

I think in conversations about asexuality and aromanticism it's sometimes forgotten the orientations describe having little or no sexual and/or romantic attraction. Having little or no attraction doesn't necessarily dictate your desires. Yes asexual and aromantic can also describe a disconnect from normative societal expectations, due to feeling repulsed by sex/romance, or being uninterested in sexual/romantic relationships, but they're not mutually exclusive. You can have little or no sexual attraction or romantic attraction and still be interested in sex and/or dating. You can want to participate in traditionally sexual coded and/or romantic coded things and still be asexual and/or aromantic. Both are valid experiences that should be equally represented while defining the community as a whole.

Rather than saying, "aromantic people don't date" if that person said, "a lot of aromantic people don't date" I feel simply including the "a lot of" part would make the statement so much more inclusive. I recognize that it's likely most asexuals don't engage in sex and it's likely most aromantics don't engage in romance as a part of their asexuality or aromanticism, but that doesn't change that there's still a chunk of ace and/or aro people who do.

I feel kinda bad making such a big deal of this, but again it is something that has genuinely negatively affected me. I understand do to amatonormativity not being interested in sex or romance can be an extremely alienating experience in our society and I want to respect that. I understand why it's so important emphasizing the validity of not being interested in a sexual or romantic relationship for example and I want to uplift aces and aros with that experience so I feel kind of shitty making a big deal out of this. I recognize because I do date for example in that way I fit more into amatonormative standards and I'm not trying to overlook that. At the same time as an aroace who does participate in sex, dates, etc I often feel like I don't exactly belong in either space which is very frustrating.

I just wanted to share my feelings on this and feel free to give constructive critique.

[enarei]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you have even a rudimentary grasp on feminist theory, and could benefit from an education.

maybe you're right, and you're welcome to educate me (like, genuinely, I would probably enjoy that). I would appreciate if you were a bit more specific with what of what I've said makes you think that, because I believe the gist of my argument is very important if not to feminism broadly, to a model of feminism that is capable of incorporating trans women without stabbing them in the back within its critique of patriarchy —namely that there isn't one intrinsic, "natural" female/woman identity or trait that invites misogyny, it's a self-reifying set of relations which creates the necessity for the concept of "womanhood" to exist, performing a woman's roles and being perceived as a woman is what makes women, women, and that includes trans women, there's little more to it than that

if you wanna set yourself apart from everyone and say you're actually a real woman, because you say you are, and dissect the difference from the transfem that doesn't necessarily think of their relation to gender through the same exclusive binary lens, however that manifests in practice, whichever labels and pronouns they choose to use, then do so, but I think you'll find that gets us no closer to examining why we are actually oppressed and the ideas we have to disseminate to counter that, because that line, while important for self-actualization, isn't actually very relevant to how we're perceived, which is often the most important aspect of how we're treated by society. while we can affirm our personal identity in relationships that are both recurring and premised on mutual respect, we don't get that privilege most of the time, and people's understanding of us are based on assumptions.

it does not matter then that you ID as a woman and the other person doesn't if you never get the opportunity to say that, it's completely irrelevant. if you are both read as <genderweird person dressed like a woman & male voice>, you're both legitimate targets for modes of violence for people associated with the words "tranny faggot".

I also find this very disingenuous because it ignores that passing, presenting as our preferred gender, isn't always a possibility, likewise, the implication that "men" by necessity can't be discriminated for gender non-conformity under exactly the same rules as non-passing trans women is completely arbitrary. you don't know how other people are being read, you don't know if they're being read as a gay man or a tranny trying to hide the fact they're tranny, or something in between, how okay the interviewer is with either and where do they draw the line. you simply don't know that! we could run the same thought experiment where a trans woman is boymoding for a job interview, wearing a binder to hide her tits (something I've done countless times), using her deadname and not displaying any signs of femininity, and she gets the job and the "man" who has a panty wearing kink and maybe also presents a lot more overtly effeminate in public doesn't, because the interviewer thought she was less of a faggot.

even if the "man" may have an easier time concealing what you would call a "fetish" at work, something you can't really distinguish from a normal aspect of a person's gender expression without a degree of moralism, are trans women that are not always out, or hide their transness at their job, not subjected to transmisogyny, are they not deserving of calling themselves trans women? should we shun them and lump them with "chasers" because they are not baring their femininity full time and being pummeled for that constantly? like, where do you draw the line? and I'm not saying the guy who likes to wear his wife's skirt while she pegs him and is otherwise a massive homophobe the rest of the time gets it like you or me, but I think it's pretty obtuse to pretend the line between "binary trans woman" and "non-trans CAMAB person who cross-dresses; whose oppression should be understood under the framing of transmisogyny", can only be measured by those two points.

[zenosanalytic]

Life in Plastic: A Modern Galatea

Just watched BARBIE(2023) and: I Liked It!

Spoilers, Obvsl, Beyond this Point, I don't want to readmore cuz I've heard things about those being Weird on mobile? idk

BARBIE(2023) isn't trying to say anything we don't already know, or position itself as a "politically challenging" film. Honestly, having now seen it, the Republican freakout about the movie is even more Pathetic than it looked getting mocked on twitter. God in Heaven, Ben Shapiro, have some dignity!

The first two acts of the film are just a massive sendup of the capitalist mythologizing around BARBIE(2023); it only repeats those advertiser lies to call them the bullshit they are, and even that is done lightly and comedically. The mythologizing of Barbie's creator in the second and third acts somewhat undercuts this, but using her as a By-The-Numbers Deus ex Machina character ala The Oracle(or every god-role Morgan Freeman ever played), AND casting Rhea Perlman(!!!) to play Ruth Handler, AND-And the overall lightness of the film, renders that pretty irrelevant. Like: I noticed it, and |:T at it internally, but it didn't nag at me or detract from my enjoyment at all. It also presents the (all male)executive-suite of the Mattel corporation as a bunch of ridiculous bozos, but I'd hardly say any of this amounts to a "critique of capitalism" in any meaningful sense. Is it pointing out the failings and flaws in capitalism? Sure. But it's all rather milquetoast stuff we already know(I mean: who thinks ANY capitalist knows what the hell they're doing anymore?) presented with a "fondly-poking" tone, and only ever deployed while also serving the film's primary objective(to be funny). There's nothing ideological about it and it doesn't really spend time on it, only developing it while doing other comedic things. If anything, the harshest critique of the movie is saved for anticapitalists; there's a scene where Sasha calls Barbie a "Fascist" which lands so inauthentic and unfairly it basically embodies that "leftists call EVERYTHING fascist" argument centrists(and cryptofascists) have mainstreamed for the last 20-goddamn-years. And I mean: putting it in the mouth of a tween girl is not NOT saying something, right?

BARBIE(2023) Does Not Hate Men; oh my god, please leave your cootie-free zones for three minutes, I beg of you. Again: accusing it of this is SO Ridiculous that it really makes obvious how insipid and GENUINELY CHILDISH, I mean like LITERALLY SCHOOL-YARD BOYS VS GIRLS JUVENILE, contemporary conservative misogyny, and its reading of this film, is. Probably the most entertaining sequence in the WHOLE MOVIE is ABOUT Ken and the Kens! They end up fighting each other in a HILARIOUS Sendup of modern action-movies, equating them DIRECTLY to how kids act out fight scenes in play(with their toys and each other. They even have the Mattel Executives walking right through the middle of it as the confused Adults, unaffected by the make-believe rules), which is ALSO a great musical number, that Then Turns into a Wonderful DANCE NUMBER about self-acceptance and choosing Solidarity over the toxicity of competition. And all this happens, consciously and overtly(like: the film literally says this), as a super-low-stakes, super-ridiculous mirrorverse-version of how our OWN misogynistic society pits women against each other to prop up male entitlement(like: while the Kens are first fighting, then finding, themselves, the Barbies are reinstating their old Matriarchal constitution, with a few Ken-held circuit court seats added as a sop to reform XD Also Alan is there). Gloria's husband(literally credited as this in Spanish) is Cute and Loveably Dense in all two of his scenes. Green!Ken(Simu Liu) has my Heart forever. Alan is also there. The only opinion this movie has on men is that they are at their best when being soft and lovable, and only The Most Excellent Bros to each other, and that maybe treating the people you love LIKE you love them is better than trying to control everything all the time(which is hard, dehumanizing, and doomed to failure anyway??)? Probably the most "political" thing going on with gender here -even WITH a big speech about the contradictions of femininity in a misogynistic society being the crux of the movie- is filming the Kens the way women usually are.

And that really sums the movie up. Low-stakes and Light. Fun and Funny. Barbie's grand reward for the whole ordeal is HILARIOUS and I won't say anything more to spoil it. Alan is also there. The most hyperbolic(though entirely justified, imv) thing I will say about this film is that it understands what a Barbie movie is and nails it, thereby making itself probably the Best Live-Action adaptation since The Lord of the Rings(or possibly the live-action Kenshin movies, if you've seen those[the 2nd and 3rd one are really good; the first one's ok]).

I'd definitely recommend it, it's a fun low-effort(for the viewer; not knocking the crew at all) movie with a tasteful smattering of genuine Cinematic Spectacle, that doesn't let its gags get old. I predict it will be one of those middling movies that lasts; that it will be a staple of mid-day HBO summer lineups in 5 years, and stay such for the next 30. Go see it in theaters if you can.

[aclosetfan]

I like to imagine Buttercup has no shame in wearing a dress because she looks good in one. From formal to sundresses, she could be that one chick that shows off her piercings and wear sandals to show off that one ankle tattoo. I think she's confident enough to dress in a liberated sense going off of the show.

I also like "cover up, Buttercup" because it does show how society could affect even a girl of her caliber. It can mirror how soft and vulnerable she really is. She cares what the people think of her, but it only works, if she's genuinely undesirable.

What I don't like is the "not like other girls" label people sometimes put on her. She is exactly like other girls, except she has power and strength to best her enemies.

It rubs me the wrong way because it's inadvertently saying "She's better without trying" and I don't agree.

"She's ugly, but she has a hot body and a pretty face, and all the guys wanna date her and chase her" And then she doesn't wear a dress because she isn't "girly" enough as if anyone would actually care.

I just want some clarity. If the reason Buttercup is ugly is because she's "tough" then I'm going to need some real "ugly" characteristics to go off of like, shes grown into an actual unlikable bitch, or she's so far removed from societal pressure, she picks her nose and spits in public. Shes gotten ocerweight over the years and lost her physique but can somehow still outtrun a man. Shes extremely annoying and loud and doesnt practice the best hygiene so she smells after gym class. She has scars and bruises all over her face from all the fights shes been in.

Not all of this at once, or hell, do all of it at once!

And, I dont care that people make her attractive. I care that it's overplayed.

Not saying pretty girls don't get flak, nor am I saying you gotta go the whole mile to make her undesirableness realistic. I'm just calling the spade a spade.

Being tough isn't enough for her to feel outcasted when she's a HERO. people worship it, Praise her and love her for her bruteness. And if you give her talents, the only haters are jealous girlies who cannot get on her level.

some guy telling her she isn't enough because she'd punch a man and win, shouldn't be enough to make her throw all her skirts away. 10 guys wouldn't if ten fold are still gonna be up her ass crack anyway.

Buttercup is literally flipping her hair and batting her lashes in the cannon series and people are still trying to give her Bunny's backstory.

Truth is, Buttercups the pretty one too, she's just the pretty one who'd knock a bitchs teeth out. Never stopped those types of women before from being oggled at.

Prime example

lol my response is under the cut because I don't want the post to be too long!

I feel like I've gotten a few ask now that critique stories that focus on the superficial aspects of the girls, like if they're described as "pretty" or "ugly." I'm starting to think that the frustration isn't so much that the girls are described as such but because it's just bad writing (a never-ending complaint I have, haha).

The previous anon also discussed Buttercup being either too feminine or masculine, and I just remembered that I hadn't responded. However, I believe she can be as hyper-masculine or feminine as the person using her character wants them to be. It doesn't matter to me as long as her characterization is consistent. Some people connect with Buttercup because she is the more masculine of the three girls, and that's wonderful and amazing. I love how she's become a character people identify with when they're messing around with their gender presentation.

Beauty and gender are all in the eye of the beholder, so what is ugly to one person can obviously be beautiful to the next. It's bad form then that people often use the word "ugly" when Buttercup is presented as "hyper-masculine." There's nothing ugly about being hypermasculine (and also, while I know you didn't mean it this way in your ask, either is being overweight). However, what's truly ugly is how a person presents themselves. A loud, obnoxious, mean-spirited, "bitchy" nose picker is probably going to be an ugly person like you described.

When writers focus so much on describing what a character looks like, especially characters they're writing fanfiction about, they're describing a "person" who the reader already knows what they look like or has their own idea of what the character should look like. Readers don't need to know how pretty someone is or what dress they're wearing if it doesn't lend to the story you're writing, which is really hard for a lot of amateur writers, like myself, because you can see the scene so clearly in your head and want to write it just that way, but giving readers every. single. detail. is actually doing yourself a disservice. Oftentimes, too much description makes the reader mad because "HEY! NO! they look like [xyz]," and then they click out of the fic.

I stay vague when I describe essential features. Like Bubbles has a dimpled smile, or Buttercup's hair is cut short. Maybe even, "Buttercup put on her favorite green sweater." Small shit like that gives readers a clue but still lets them copy/paste their ideas over mine.

But to make readers know "hey people find this person attractive but she doesn't notice," I practice SHOWING not telling. Like, Buttercup walks into a room, Butch observes all eyes are on her, she doesn't notice the attention because it's the same attention she's always dealt with, and because she doesn't pay attention to it, she comes off aloof or "bitchy" from Butch's perspective. How would Butch know any better? He can't read her mind.

That's why writing in other povs and making the character do things is so much more beneficial to their perceived attractiveness than just flat-out telling a reader "trust me, you'd bone her if you had the chance, she's so hot." You get a chance to establish personalities, relationships, and potential conflicts.

Another example is if you h/c Buttercup wears dresses, no other character is going to react to her wearing them. You state, "Buttercup put on her dress." If you want to specify what kind of dress you say, "it was her most comfortable t-shirt dress. She liked it because it had large pockets." Then, boom, that's it. In these instances, describing her appearance is used to convey her personality traits/motives (she likes to dress comfortably. She has a need for large pockets). You're not saying that Buttercup is a "GIRL WHO LIKES DRESSES BECAUSE SHE'S FEMININE, GOT IT?!? BUT SHE STILL KICKS ASS!!" Instead, you're giving yourself the opportunity to explain she likes to collect rocks (??) while also conveying that she likes wearing clothing that people could perceive as "feminine."

If Buttercup is forced to wear a dress that she doesn't want to wear, now, you have a bit of a story to stretch out. Her wearing a dress is odd. People irl would take notice of it, and therefore, you can make a bigger deal about it.

And if you want to show that she's "not like other girls," which I agree is an annoying trope, but I understand some people want to show "feminity" while still preserving their "masculinity," you can do this at the same time you're developing Buttercup's relationships. Example: It is remarked Blossom and Buttercup are both wearing dresses. Blossom and Buttercup both get their dresses dirty. The scene pans to Blossom being frantic about getting the dirt off, bemoaning her appearance. The scene pans to Buttercup, she is shin-deep in a mud pit, stuffing a particularly large bullfrog into her large dress pockets, next to the cool rocks she found.

A scene like that shows that Buttercup likes wearing dresses, but isn't afraid of dirt, rocks, or frogs, as opposed to Blossom, who may be reacting more "appropriately" to their situation, making it clear Buttercup has other priorities ("isn't like other girls" w/out explicitly saying "I'm not like other girls, I like dresses and dirt.").

You mentioned that you like the idea that she'd be confident wearing a dress. Perfect! If she doesn't do it often, and you want to make a bigger deal out of it, you can be like:

Buttercup clicked her tongue as she picked through her closet, pulling out a black halter top dress Bubbles had made her buy two or so years ago. She examined the short number and grinned. When she tried it on, it was a bit tight around her ass, but her arms looked fantastic.

"You're wearing a dress!?" Bubbles gushed walking into the room as Buttercup checked herself out, "What's the occasion!"

"Isn't it obvious?" Buttercup turned around, flexing her arms and shoulders, and they really did look good in that dress, "I got a new tattoo!"

"Oh cool! Is that a bullfrog?" Bubbles asked leaning in to examine Buttercup's upper shoulder.

"On a cool rock!" Buttercup beamed, standing a little prouder, "Badass, right?"

The dress is important to the story. The writer was able to point out she doesn't wear them often, people are surprised when she wears them, she doesn't mind wearing them, how attractive her arms were, the tattoo, and that her ass stretches out the dress, which some people could also find attractive. It doesn't make her seem vain, conceited, or "better" than others. She just knows she looks good.

I mean, I think it gets the job done, and it isn't just a list of what she looks like.

tldr: Essentially, no matter how masculine or feminine you think Buttercup should present, literally, no one cares what she is wearing if it isn't important to the story.

[clonerightsagenda]

So - I promised my full take on Within the Wires, and here it is.

First of all, Night Vale Presents continues to be very good at shorter, self-contained stories. WTNV lost me because it just got too long and formless for my tastes - which is fine if that's your jam! but it's not mine - but Alice isn't Dead was a good length for me, and these ten episode standalone seasons really allow them to tell a tight story without wearing out their welcome.

I love the use of the audio medium. WtW started back near the start of the audio drama renaissance when everyone was justifying the medium, and they do a great job - relaxation cassettes, voicemails, audio guides, memos, etc. Nothing else bowled me over quite as much as episode 9 of season 1 in the way it broke down the barriers between speaker and listener, but I really enjoyed the choices made.

I guess I have to accept that the Society is just a weird dystopia concept created to let these stories happen, because it doesn't really make sense. Sure, authoritarian societies don't always make sense or tell the truth about their motives, but family as the primary driver of discord between humans? It seems like the Reckoning started as WWI and then kept rolling, and most of the soldiers in WWI were not fighting each other because of personal animosity. The Society got rid of parents but kept corporations and politicians - that's rich. It would be reasonable to say the Society saw an opening in that taking over the socialization of new generations allows it to indoctrinate everyone, but I read the tie-in novel and the original designers seemed to genuinely believe family was the root of these issues. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. (Also the novel having a Black woman be the proponent of this theory was a bit odd to me.)

A few other things that pinged me the wrong way - WtW highlights a relationship between women in each season, which is great and probably (alas) why it is not more popular.... except season 3 which highlights a trans man. Wondering what the intended implication is there.

I also noted the issues with Native Americans in an earlier post. Season seven sort of addressed that? On one hand you have the mention of Aboriginal Australians reclaiming part of their land and Aotearoa using the original place names, almost like the Society is being framed as this decolonized paradise, but the season progresses to a critique of how clinically teaching children ripped from their families about their 'culture' in classrooms isn't the same as letting people pass down their heritage, just as a family bakery isn't the same bakery if you're just handing new people the recipes. Still, it's interesting that the past treatment of Indigenous people in the Americas has not come up at all, given the aforementioned similarities to residential schools. It looks like the co-writer is from New Zealand which explains why Māori stuff has come up multiple times, but Jeffrey Cranor is American. (Though, I've noted, has a history of overlooking Native issues.)

Some seasons were stronger than others. Season 6 was definitely my least favorite - didn't feel like it tied in much with any of the others. Overall though, the writing was strong, episode 9 of each season usually punched you in the gut, and I really liked how complex a lot of the characters were. Truly a podcast committed to morally grey women.

Verdict: Compelling characters, emotionally impactful storylines, very clever and interesting use of the audio medium, worldbuilding does not really hold up to close scrutiny but that's ok.

[xaurabntahffxiv]

One thing that I think that people forget about Goncharov is that it's not just a critique of mafia movies, but it's also a critique of movies such as A Fistful of Dollars and Yojimbo, with their protagonists that fill the role of the Lonely Warrior.

The Lonely Warrior is one of the most exceptionally toxic masculine character archetypes in existence. After all, what does the Lonely Warrior do? He commits violence. He kills. He destroys. That is the entire reason for his existence. And yet, for some reason, the people who made movies like Fistful and Yojimbo expect us to think that the Lonely Warrior is cool, expect us to look up to and idolize the Lonely Warrior. But why? Why would we ever want to do that? Because he's the peak of masculine strength and violence? And yet, in most of those types of films, we never, EVER see the Lonely Warrior happy. He's never having fun. He's never connecting to other people. He's killing, and he's destroying, and never anything else.

Goncharov is aware that he is a Lonely Warrior, and he hates it. (Pity's sake, he's introduced as "the stranger", and Goncharov is obviously a false name, same as with Yojimbo and "Sanjuro".) Maybe he doesn't understand it in a metafictional sense, but he understands it in the context of the universe of the film. Everybody always talks about how many people's Goncharov's killed. They talk about his acts of destruction, about his acts of death. And Goncharov HATES it. He doesn't want to be remembered as someone who only killed and destroyed, but he knows that the society around him - both the mafia and the KGB - only value him as a Lonely Warrior, only value his skills at violence.

We can joke all we want about how Goncharov and Andrey just needed to have gay sex, but that truly is kind of the whole point. Andrey was the first person that Goncharov had ever felt a genuine connection to in his entire life. Andrey was the first person that Goncharov didn't view as someone giving him orders to kill people, as someone to be killed, or as a bystander that might get in the way of killing people. Whether Goncharov's feelings for Andrey were platonic or romantic, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that Goncharov saw in Andrey a way out of the life that he was stuck in, a way out of being the Lonely Warrior, a way out of death and destruction and into happiness, whether as friends or as lovers. Conversely, Andrey saw in Goncharov a way out of the lifestyle, as well - if not permanently, then at least temporarily in the intimate moments that they shared.

But society valued and idolized the Lonely Warrior too much, same as A Fistful of Dollars and Yojimbo had idolized their Lonely Warriors. More than that, society *needed* Goncharov to be a Lonely Warrior, and by attempting to connect with Andrey, by attempting to be *happy* for once in his God-forsaken life, Goncharov had disrupted the order of society. He had attempted to step out of his place, had attempted to buck off the role that society had placed on him. And because society would not countenance this rebellion, they handed down capital punishment in retribution for Goncharov's sin of just trying to be a person with friends and family and loves, rather than just a tool of violence and death like Blondie and Sanjuro were.

Obviously there's a million other themes present in the film, but I definitely think that there's a lot of obvious digs at other films like Fistful and Yojimbo in the movie that a lot of people miss because all of the other themes in the film are more obvious and front-and-center.

[syekick-powers]

i've been seeing some posts circulating on tumblr lately that have been like, arguing for why the idea that fantasy/sci-fi is better without certain irl prejudices and bigotries is a bad take. and that in certain stories, purposeful inclusion of things like queerphobia, transphobia, ableism, racism, etc into a narrative can be used as very effective commentary against that particular bigotry by distilling it down into its essence and presenting its negative consequences in an emphasized fashion, to bring to attention otherwise unnoticeable aspects of those bigotries in the actual world.

and yeah. i do agree that portraying bigotries in a sci-fi/fantasy setting is often a good way to commentate on those actual bigotries. but i think a lot of the ways people try to argue that point tend not to address what people who like fantasy/sci-fi stories WITHOUT those things actually like. often times, arguing that using fantasy and sci-fi absent of those bigotries as escapism is portrayed as supremely naive and shallow, like anyone who doesn't enjoy seeing portrayals of people graphically abused for traits they share is somehow weak or pathetic or removed from reality. and it's really getting grating on my nerves.

see. i like a little bit of both. i enjoy certain portrayals of genre fiction that shows real, genuine depictions of bigotry and how it functions on a micro or macro scale, how it negatively affects people and their lives for years and years. but i ALSO very much enjoy escaping into worlds where those bigotries don't exist and are considered ridiculous. because bigotry IS ridiculous. and sometimes i ENJOY stories that portray bigotry towards minority populations as awful, horrid, undesirable behavior, and certainly not an inherent trait for society overall. the idea that a story without IRL bigotries cannot function as a critique of those bigotries is just patently insane to me, because portraying the absence of a bigotry can be just as politically motivated as portraying its presence.

like. think about this. you start reading about a fantasy world where homophobia and transphobia doesn't exist, where queer attraction and gender variance are treated as normal, natural, and completely unremarkable things. do you think this isn't saying something about how our current society views queer attraction and gender variance as dirty, deviant, and disgusting? the story goes out of its way to state that this prejudice is wrong in the way the characters react to anyone who goes against this expectation (i.e. anyone who DOES react with some kind of bigotry towards queer/trans people is treated as an awful person by the narrative and other characters) and repeatedly states the conceit that it is normal and natural again and again: this particular human variance is NOT dirty and deviant, it is so normal that people don't have a concept of it being anything else. that is, in of itself, a political commentary on bigotry. it IS stating that bigotry is a learned trait, that it's not inherent to society, that being bigoted towards people is terrible and that anyone who behaves like that is equally as terrible.

additionally, i feel like there's some nuance lost between individual portrayals of bigotry versus just a narrative's presence or absence of irl bigotry overall. i find portrayals of homophobic/transphobic fantasy/sci-fi stories written by cishet white men to be fundamentally boring and unpalatable because most cishet white men who insert queer/transphobia into their fantasy or sci-fi narratives do so without actually learning about what underpins that bigotry. they don't have a genuine motive to portray the negative effects of queer/transphobia; they include it in their spec fic because they haven't done the work to unlearn those bigotries on a subconscious level and cannot imagine a human society that does not possess hatred of queer sexuality and gender variance, even if they don't understand what kind of motivations underpin those hatreds. they haven't done any work to understand the societal structures that encourage and replicate these bigotries, thus to them the bigotry is reduced to some kind of fundamental essence that cannot be separated from humanity. most stories written by people like this are shallow, and their portrayal of that bigotry is practically abuse porn, where queer/trans characters are put through all manner of horrifying treatment without any kind of emotional catharsis or sympathy given to them by the narrative. stories like these are fundamentally unpleasant to engage with for me, as a queer trans person, because they do not seek to deconstruct bigotry and display its inherent flaws and irrationalities. rather, they seek simply to reproduce those bigotries because the author does not understand how they work or what they come from whatsoever and sees the hatred of minority groups as some kind of inherent feature to being alive and sentient. so. again. the idea that all fantasy or sci fi that portrays irl bigotries is good because it's "critiquing" them or "offering social commentary" on them is just. ridiculous. like i love sci fi and fantasy but writing spec fec does not free you from your biases, and biased authors will write biased stories.

just. like. i understand wanting to see bigotry portrayed realistically. and i understand people who say things like "i want to see this hatred of people like me included in portrayals of people like me because being a target of that hatred has irreversibly shaped my identity and my relationship with the world, so any character who is supposed to represent me who lacks that experience with that hatred doesn't feel like an accurate representation of what people like me go through." i get it. i get it. i get it. but painting spec fic stories portraying irl bigotry as "incisive commentary about how bigotry works" and spec fic stories that don't portray irl bigotry as "bland boring escapism that's only consumed by vapid idiots who aren't in touch with reality" is so unbelievably, absurdly reductive. you need to fucking take this kind of shit on a story by story basis, and look at what the presentation of bigotry is saying in the narrative. sometimes the presence of bigotry is fundamental to the story's themes and the message it is attempting to convey, and separating the bigotry from the story inherently destroys its premise. sometimes bigotry exists in a story as an afterthought only included because the author is trying to be "realistic" without fully understanding the real implications of including that bigotry in their story, and it becomes some shallow bullshit that adds absolutely nothing to a narrative's themes or message and only serves as a vessel for cheap, shocking violence. sometimes a lack of bigotry in a sci-fi/fantasy setting is meant to be a political statement in of itself, as a way of calling to attention the inherent ridiculousness of hating someone for something as shallow as skin color, and is meant to show that bigotry is a learned trait rather an inherent one, telling us that it's possible to eventually create a society where those bigotries no longer exist. sometimes a lack of bigotry in a setting just exists because the author was trying to convey a specific theme that would have been muddled by the addition of that bigotry, and the lack of it has no specific meaning to the story whatsoever.

please for the love of god. just judge each individual story on its own merits instead of trying to smear a particular trope you don't like.

[spacedkitty]

the definitions amongst the disparate leftist groups seem intentionally setup to cause semantic debates masquerading as ideological debates

the issue is that anti-civ wants to talk about and critique very specific things and one of the main words used to talk about those things is a specific usage of the word civilization.

many leftists just want to prevent anyone from ever thinking about these things or taking anti-civ seriously in the first place which is why they'll often describe anti-civ as primitivist or eco-fash or use some other thought terminating accusation.

this is also why its very common for leftists who do end up talking about anti-civ use entirely different and often useless definitions of civilization. one of the common claims is that civilization means anything humans have ever done... but what exactly is the purpose of that definition? how does it help you talk about or communicate something? its not helpful with talking about anything because its only purpose is to make it harder for people to understand what an anti-civ critique is trying to say. its actually very similar to capitalists saying that capitalism is anytime humans exchange anything so capitalism has always and will always exist.

unfortunately semantic debates are more memeable on the internet so why bother with a difficult ideological debate that might require introspection, questioning of assumptions, and making difficult decisions about where your priorities are.

I worry that this is a sentiment I've seen expressed by almost every group of leftists I've encountered on the internet, each with their own set of terminology/definitions that they state the other groups dismiss out of hand as some form of conspiracy to suppress their particular brand of leftist views.

I don't think any of these groups are wrong exactly, I just worry that perhaps the problem becomes one of insularity. I see why the definition being used is used in this case, because it helps to conceptualize of civilization in this manner when dealing with the particular critiques specific to anti-civ. However, without that context, it's extremely hard to parse and looks far closer to "well, like, society is evil and we should live in mud-huts" than makes sense, and in a world full of fascists, well, I've encountered a few people that truly seem to think that's the right approach..

Without context it is easy to see idiocy in the arguments of others if you are primed to do so (which our present society does an excellent job of).

Often I see people get absorbed into a particular brand of leftism and begin denouncing the others after having furious debates using words that seem to mean different things to the different parties. Sometimes when they encounter something to change their perspective they will jump to another brand with a similar fervor and go on to denounce the former brand with the same fervor they defended it with, now using different definitions.

I still have a great deal to learn, but it always feels difficult to do so when often genuine questions are treated with hostility and a dogmatic approach to a group's views. Which I guess I understand, given the frequency of trolls (from all sides of the political spectrum, let's be honest) attempting to waste people's time with frivolous bullshit.

I find myself looking into anti-civ and finding it compatible in many ways with my understandings of socialism and anarchism, and wondering why it felt so hostile and absurd when first I encountered it. Similar to the feelings I had when first learning of communism, socialism and anarchism.

Many leftists just want to prevent anyone from ever thinking about these things or taking anti-civ seriously

I honestly don't agree with you here. I know there are some who do, but I think the vast majority have gotten into confusing debates that mimicked impassible ideological differences and wrote it off, particularly when discussing with others in their movement.

A common problem I've encountered (particularly in online leftist circles) is one of defending ivory tower knowledge over conversational understanding, which makes understanding other groups significantly harder. If your go-to response to criticism or misunderstanding of your movement is "go read this tome" you open no doors to communication, only offering a silo of separate knowledge and perspective.

In summary, I don't think most leftists are opposed to understanding anti-civ, I think we are just primed by society and other leftist movements to see anti-civ perspectives, without the proper context, as reactionary and regressive. A view I think most leftist groups see in one another.

I hope things could possibly be shifted with better grassroots communication and like, maybe something as silly seeming as leftist dictionaries, but that remains to be seen (by me at least).

[canchewread]

Editor’s note: Bookish Bits is a regular literary writing column on Can’t You Read. Featuring both traditional book reviews, and expanded essays, this book blog encompasses all of my writing about the volumes in my extensive library.

Birdwatching With Liberal Antifascism: A Review of “How Fascism Works: the Politics of Us and Them” by Jason Stanley.

If you've been reading my anti-fascist analysis long enough, you'll know that I'm often quite critical of the imagined efforts of "liberal antifascists" in the Pig Empire. This is in part because foundationally, it's awfully hard to be an effective antifascist without also being an anticapitalist. It has also been my experience however that affluent liberals in positions of actual power are often far less interested in fighting fascists, than protecting their own wealth; if forced to choose between the two, they will quickly abandon all pretenses at opposing the fascist creep and side with hierarchal capitalist power to the bitter end. There is after all a reason I refer to this as our collective "Weimar America" period.

How then are we to approach an intelligent, well-read, genuinely sincere liberal antifascist? Even more perplexing, what does a reasonable observer do when this sincere liberal antifascist has produced what amounts to a fantastic birdwatching guide that allows even small children to recognize fascist politics in action, but offers up only vaguely reformist solutions that flatly will not stop the fascist creep? In short, how do we address a book like Jason Stanley's 2018 work "How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them?" In the end, I've decided that the only honest way forward is to critique what Stanley's book is, rather than focus on what it is not.

So what is it? Expressed simply, How Fascism Works is a collection and analysis of ten objectively fascist political tactics being used to seize control by contemporary far right, ultranationalist movements across the Pig Empire. A study of both rhetoric and process, the author's work isn't about fascist governments, so much as the political movements that put them in power. Although Stanley does spend some time discussing twentieth-century fascist regimes like the Nazis in Germany, or Mussolini's fascist Italy, his focus is very much in the here and now, along with the type of reactionary, eliminationist politics that empowered leaders such as Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and of course Donald Trump in America.

Just what are these fascist political techniques? Stanley identifies them as a call to a "mythic past," inverted reactionary "propaganda," fervent "anti-intellectualism," the enforcement of "unreality," insistence on the existence of a natural "hierarchy," imagined "victimhood," rigid enforcement of authoritarian "law and order," manipulation of "sexual anxiety," casting internal lifestyle differences in the mold of "Sodom and Gomorrah," and otherized presumptions about work ethic and productive value to society. Although each of these pillars are individually present in all types of reactionary politics across the Pig Empire; taken together, they represent clear evidence of a fascist movement in progress - which is the best time to identify fascism; since once it's no longer a fascist movement, but rather a fascist regime, it's far too late to stop it.

Within the narrow, but still relevant confines of studying fascist political practices on the path to power in a faux liberal democracy, I'd have to say How Fascism Works is a smashing success. Drawing heavily from thinkers like Eco, Adorno, and Arendt, Stanley's analysis highlights not only the practices of fascist politicians, but also why they're so effective in convincing the classic "authoritarian personality" type to surrender all autonomy, and indeed rational thought, to fascist charlatans and strongmen. In this regard, Stanley's book might more accurately be called "How Fascism Works (on bootlickers, to dismantle capitalist faux democracies)" instead. Still, for folks primarily concerned with the practical realities of identifying modern fascist movements, and unwinding their poisonous political arguments, How Fascism Works will definitely deliver the goods.

Which unfortunately brings us to the pushback against Stanley's work, and why How Fascism Works is simultaneously a valuable resource, and a dangerous diversion from effective antifascist practices. While many reactionary observers have criticized Stanley for failing to define what fascism is; I don't think that critique is accurate or in good faith. Stanley does define fascism in a purely political context; wingers simply don't like that his definition accurately describes their current political practices. The author clearly states he's not talking about the policies of established regimes, or even the ideology of fascist movements, but rather their methods of acquiring power; you can't crush a guy for failing to write the book you would have preferred to read, and I don't give two wet horse apples whether or not American fascists dislike a Yale professor calling them, well, fascists.

Perhaps more surprisingly however, How Fascism Works has also drawn criticism from some antifascists; particularly those like myself, who largely agree with Trotsky's analysis about what fascism really is, and why it is unleashed by the ruling classes in a liberal democratic society that appears more free than it is. There is literally no anticapitalist component to either Stanley's analysis, or his wholly inadequate proposed solutions; which more or less boil down to "liberal politicians need to be better true liberals and we all need to vote harder to protect our democratic institutions." The end result is in effect a wonderful book about types of nazi birds, and the modern habits of those birds, without much discussion of why the birds are there and what to do if they're trying to kill you for capitalists and hierarchal power.

Does that ultimately matter? Well, that depends on what you want a book like How Fascism Works to accomplish. In light of its widespread popularity, I would say it has been an effective part of the mainstream discourse that has finally at this late a date, allowed liberals to accurately describe the American right's current evolution as fascist; albeit, tepidly so. By that same measure, Stanley's insistence that the liberal democratic order that birthed this fascist movement is the only answer to the problem, probably hasn't helped many of those people become effective antifascists; as evidenced by the fact that Joe Biden has been president for almost two years, and American fascism is still growing politically stronger by the day.

In the final analysis, all of this makes Stanley's How Fascism Works a wonderfully written, extremely informative "birdwatching" book for liberals who'd like to be antifascists, but don't know how to spot and resist the fascist propaganda all around them. If you're looking for an accessible way to get your Dem-voting Auntie who really misses the quiet dignity of bygone liberal politicians like Bobby Kennedy, or John Lewis, onside in the war against contemporary fascism, this is probably the book you want to buy for her. If on the other hand you're looking for a deep theory discussion about why capitalist societies are always capable of turning fascist at any moment, and how we can stamp out the serpent of violent reaction forever; this book doesn't have a whole lot to offer you.

On the basis that you can't punish a book for failing to be something it never promised you in the first place, I'm going to give How Fascism Works three and a half stars. Although I acknowledge that Stanley's work here is excellent, his ideological concessions to capitalist realism make it impossible to call this great antifascist scholarship. Plus I felt obligated to dock him a half star for excessive West Wing-esque rhapsodizing about liberal democratic institutions that can't stop fascism; because they were designed by, and are controlled by, reactionary capitalists who prefer fascism to sharing.

nina illingworth

Anarcho-syndicalist writer, critic and analyst.

You can find my work at ninaillingworth.com, Can’t You Read, Media Madness and my Patreon Blog

Updates available on Twitter, Instagram, Mastodon and Facebook.

Podcast at “Kropotkin’s Barbershop” on Soundcloud.

Inquiries and requests to speak to the manager @ASNinaWrites

Chat with fellow readers online at Anarcho Nina Writes on Discord!

“It’s ok Willie; swing heil, swing heil…”

[elegant-agent]

For what it's worth, most mecha series are very much "A corrupt democracy rotting from the inside out fight space nazis," following in the themes set up in the defining series to the real robot genre (Gundam, of course.)

So I'm kinda skeptical of that kind of marxist critique. Like, that flawed series might just be the point - how like other mecha series, these are the good guys until you dig deeper and realize the situation is quite complex.

You can note that the first campaign ever released results in you uncovering a genocide and how that interacts with the history of the setting. And it's like... Mmmm, yeah, I think you ARE supposed to question things here.

yeah! like you don't just hear about hercynia's history of being tbk'd, you fucking *witness* it and its survivors and the remnants of those weapons all around the planet! and the people who made those weapons are still walking around! harrison armory is made from the remnants of seccomm, the people who engineered and coordinated the hercynian crisis and literally decades of human rights abuse! and they're part of union's core political stances!

the situation around union is infinitely complex because it's obvious that, of every faction around the universe, union is probably up there in terms of "actually does good things" between the dojhr and ambassadors genuinely wanting to connect outer planets to union's post-scarcity society. but also, union outright admits that their society cannot function without shacking NHPs who are debatably sentient outside of being shackled. shackled for a good reason? probably. i think it's good that the book never explains what cycling truly is: mindwiping, therapy, or anything else. it's this ambiguity that i really like, because it can be presented in either way, and they'd both feel correct.

also also! the corebook mentions how most people benefiting from union's administration never get the chance to even go to the coreworlds or even meet the ambassadors on their planet! it's this very interesting idea of benefiting from something you'd never meet, because union rule is genuinely utopian from all accounts i remember. but that also means that the people benefiting from it never realize what union is capable of back in the core worlds. they don't know about the baronies or the ungratefuls or the hercynian crisis.

union is very obviously a flawed entity, by no means perfect. if you want to fight against union, that's entirely valid, because union is infinitely huge; there's no way that everyone in union shares the same sort of sentimentality that the corebook presents itself with. hell, you can even argue against the ways that union absorbs independent planets into itself; that's how solstice rain starts, by union wanting to bring an entire planet into their fold, even though one of the major nation expresses disinterest in this.

maybe i'm looking too deep into this, but union isn't about being a totally good guy or a secret bad guy all along or making compromises in a galaxy full of morally gray characters. i have no idea what to conclude from it, but all i know is that union is infinitely fuckin complex in a galaxy where people are shattered and separated.

[ear-worthy]

Immigrantly Media Presents Banterly Podcast Dissecting Gen Z Pop Culture

When people converse about starting a podcast, they usually begin with "who will be in the podcast." That decision takes up the bulk of their planning process. Others -- perhaps those with a more acute sense of a game plan -- decide to reverse engineer the process and begin with a clear definition of their audience. In effect, "Who the hell is going to listen to our podcast and listen to us talk?"

After listening to the premiere episode of Banterly, I strongly suspect that the producers and hosts clearly delineated their audience. That target audience is Gen-Z.

The creators of the award-winning podcast Immigrantly have launched a new show for an under-served market: Gen-Z listeners who want to hear complex and critical conversations about pop culture. 

Perhaps the folks at Immigrantly Media have inspected the data I've reviewed numerous times. That listener data from PodTrac and others reveals that podcast growth is strongest among Millennials and Gen-Z listeners. The weakest demographic for podcast listening is people over 65. Technology challenges and ingrained media habits limit podcasts among older listeners. The folks at Immigrantly Media note: "We know that Gen-Z podcast listeners are on the rise, but where can they get an analysis of the latest TikTok trends, contemporary films, and TV shows from people their own age? Enter Banterly." Hosted by Aditi Misra, a Gen-Z comedian, and Aidan Taylor, a recent journalism grad, these two "banter" about pop culture and media analysis from "an unfiltered and socially conscious Gen-Z perspective." Aditi Misra is a recent graduate from Barnard College, originally from Tampa, Florida. She does stand up around New York City and is part of a sketch group called Dem We Boys with her dearest friends (notably, the Boys). Her obsessions are lengthy, including John Mulaney, the NYC Ferry, and labor unions. Her biggest fear? Losing her Mort impression. And also bugs. Aidan Taylor is a journalism graduate from NYU, hailing from St. Louis, Missouri. When he’s not writing, sleeping, or eating, you can find him watching every single Real Housewives show (besides Jersey), or rewatching the best show of all time, Glee. While he’s not a huge movie buff, The Goonies, Pitch Perfect, and Shiva Baby are his top three (in no particular order). His favorite dessert is chocolate chip cookies. “Immigrantly’s focus on the importance of uplifting underrepresented voices inspired me to join their team as a co-host for Banterly,” said co-host Aditi Misra. “Our generation is constantly engaging with TV, movies, and trends, and we hope to do it in a way that brings diverse identities into the conversation. While I can’t wait to give my hot takes on these topics, I am mainly looking forward to what our listeners think. Banterly will ultimately be a two-way conversation, and I hope we all learn something new from it.” Co-host Aidan Taylor shares, “I was drawn to Banterly and Immigrantly Media because of their mission of telling stories from often silenced communities. This new podcast is an exciting way to engage with a younger generation, my generation, on pop-culture, something I have always been interested in, while also having those deep and important conversations tying back to our society as a whole. It’ll hopefully be a fun weekly escape for listeners from the craziness of the world, and they’ll end up laughing with us and maybe step away with a different perspective.”

I listened to the premiere episode that debuted on January 10th and genuinely enjoyed it. The co-hosts have solid chemistry, evident even after the first episode. Both hosts don't try to be funny, but instead allow the flow of conversation to dictate the humor. Their discussions on Taylor's Zillow Stalking, and Misra's ASMR dental devices are delightfully strange, yet so poignantly sincere. 

Their initial critique on the TV show Sex Education was comprehensive, incisive, yet casual and conversational.

The debut episode had superb sound design with simple yet effective intro music, rich, deeply resonant co-host voices and a clean sound throughout the episode. Banterly is brought to you by Immigrantly Media, creators of the Immigrantly podcast and Invisible Hate. Funding for Banterly is supported by American Public Media Group (APMG). 

 Finally, just because Banterly is designed for Gen-Z listeners, that doesn't preclude other generations dialing in. I'm a Baby Boomer and I thoroughly enjoyed it. We all benefit when we reach out to other generations, races, people with different lifestyles, and those with disagree with.

At the end of the episode, the co-hosts do the typical "we want your feedback and here's how to do it" speech. Then Taylor made me laugh when he admitted, "Yeah, I don't handle negative feedback well." 

Oh, the honesty. It's refreshing.

[vitos-ordination-song]

I’m going to do other things now but. Here’s my final thoughts. They said that The Wire s4 was tragedy porn, voyeuristicly presenting the audience with misery so they can feel good about bearing witness to it. They also try to frame the show as so liberal that the only conclusion it can come up with is after-school programs, and that otherwise it’s acting as if all we can do is throw our hands up at the brutality of American life.

But what they’ve missed is that the show IS critical of the capitalist system. They must not have done research, because David Simon has said as much. And maybe the issue is just that they don’t think that shows up enough in the series. However, they don’t engage with the text and frequently get details wrong, so I think it’s more likely that they didn’t rewatch it, or only rewatched a couple episodes. I think that they originally saw it as young liberals and liked it, and are now trying to overcompensate by castigating it and thus their ignorant past selves, or something like that. But they’re remembering it through skewed lenses. Even if you think the show is too pro-cop or too liberal, many of their takes were simply factually incorrect. For instance, they say that the show is pro-Democrat and that voting blue is framed as the only solution. I don’t even need to explain to anyone who paid attention to the show why that’s wrong. And the NUMBER ONE solution that is ABSOLUTELY CLEARLY COMMUNICATED by the show and David Simon himself is ending the drug war. Call it reformist, it is still an actual policy that would make America a better place! The fact that they never even bring it up, and instead say s3 was a metaphor for the Iraq war, is incredible. And given that money, corruption, and economic disparity are the driving force of every single plot line, I also don’t think the anti-capitalist leanings are deniable. David Simon has even said that the Greek is meant to be the representation of omnipotent/omnipresent capitalism. Matt and Felix complain about the show being too obvious but they apparently missed this.

Let’s go back to season 4’s tragedy porn. Well, if all these themes and social critiques are the point of the show, season 4 is actually VITAL to the story. Viewers aren’t supposed to sit there being titillated by Mike, Randy, and Duquan’s stories—they’re supposed to want to do something about it! Is there something inherently explorative about depicting real-world situations people end up in? They said it Duquan’s story was “too sad.” Do you know what’s actually too sad? The fact that millions of children around the world are in similar situations. I’m not saying the show is perfect, there’s a hundred things I could say to criticize it. But to act like characters as well crafted and believable as Michael and Duquan are just there for liberals to stroke themselves to? I don’t buy it. They have too much dignity, too much agency despite their circumstances! They’re not only victims. Even Duquan still chooses where he ends up. The show just explores the sick circumstances which leads the characters to their fate—it does an amazing job of balancing individual and society’s interplay. But somehow while saying that the s4 storyline is just tragedy porn, they ALSO claim that the show doesn’t do enough to establish the many, primarily economic reasons kids end up being chewed up by the system. THAT’S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE SEASON.

Frankly, the reason I love The Wire more than any other American drama is that it goes there. It depicts people from all walks of life, even those whose stories are rarely told. I may sound prudish or moralistic but genuinely: I’ve had enough of the protagonists from the kinds of shows they like. I enjoyed what I’ve seen of The Sopranos, it’s not like I thought Deadwood was bad, and I haven’t finished either so I’m not qualified to talk on them. But I’m tired of “[almost always white] man is evil and ambitious, let’s explore his psychology” stories. I can like them in movie form (There Will Be Blood), I can appreciate them when they’re well executed, but god they’re so overdone. We have a million of the fucking guys. We have only one of Mike, Dukie, Randy, and Namond. That’s why The Wire is superior to me.

Even tho I spent a lot of the night mad, I’m actually glad I watched that video. I’ve never articulated my thoughts on The Wire as much as I did tonight, fueled by pure rage. I’ve still only seen a few interesting takes on The Wire, but I suppose this was one of them for how bafflingly wrong it was. In my attempt to describe how, I came up with the above and many other thoughts. I also spit out a whole verbal essay on the portrayal of cops on the show earlier, as well as its journalistic realism vs. TV genre tropes and conventions. But anyway, I can understand why ppl don’t like certain things about The Wire, even if they don’t bother me, but this video was just ridiculous.