#ideological morale boosting

[drdemonprince]

Not gonna lie it is quite emotionally dispiriting for a certain category of people online to treat me like i'm a flagrant covid denier who doesnt mask or care about disabled people simply because i'm like "oh hey, your grandmother who doesn't wear a mask is a victim of the same systemic forces as you." or "hey, profound social isolation takes a toll on people that impacts their health and their behavior and that must be included in our risk calculations and mitigation strategies whether we like it or not"

like. i mask. i test. i get vaccinated/boosted. i communicate risk factors to people. i plan outdoor events when i can. i fight to not have in person engagements at work tooth and nail and often at personal expense.

but even if i never did any of those things, i would not deserve to get sick and die, because there are no morally acceptable COVID deaths, no matter what choices a person makes or doesn't make, no matter which mitigations they do or fail to do.

one of my close friends just got fired because her boss said she was "taking covid too seriously." that's the kind of evil we are up against here. not like, your friend's friend going to a concert and forgeting his mask in his other jacket that one time. that guy's still doing better than 90% of americans by having a mask he carries around with him in his jacket. he's not some eugenicist demon. he's some guy living in really miserable and difficult circumstances who made a to-be-expected-sometimes human error. and your grandma who has been propagandized into believing that COVID isn't a big deal (while in actuality being quite high risk herself) is a victim not an evildoer.

way to win over more people to your cause guys. very public health minded of you to view anyone who doesn't perfectly meet your behavioral and ideological standards as an enemy. way to punish the behavior you want. it fucking sucks man.

[matan4il]

what do we do in the face of indoctrination and bigotry like this, when it's being taught to small children in the United States? https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6rUBp-LjRc/?igsh=NGhpeXNldWFpOWNm - this is so terrifying tbh :(

Nonnie, you're right. :( This is truly petrifying.

What's so horrifying is of course that kids that age do not have the required tools of knowledge and critical thinking to make an informed decision on this, they basically have no free will here, they're being used to promote someone else's political agenda.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by StopAntisemitism (@stop_antisemitism)

I wish I had more details, because I do think there's a difference between an "educator" organizing an event like this, and a parent. If it's the former, parents might be approached to stop this indoctrination and exploitation of their kids, especially if it was done without their consent or their own full understanding. If it's a parent doing this to their own kid... :/ That's harder to deal with (and so much worse in what it means for the kid).

Education is always a touchy subject. Every parent, every educator, wants to give the kid they're responsible for the set of values they truly believe is the most important one, and in that sense, there is always a degree of indoctrination involved in education, or even just in parents passing on their own culture and heritage (and with that, its values, beliefs and mentality) to their kids. Good parents and educators allow the kid to eventually choose their own path, even if it's very different to theirs (and there's a question of what's "very different" and what's "actually immoral" when a kid chooses another set of values), however the path they choose for the kid to begin with is always one without any free choice on the part of the child. Even trying to avoid teaching them a certain set of moral values ends up being a moral choice, made entirely by the parents or educators.

But when it comes to a subject that's purely political, does not directly entail these kids and their families, their people or their culture, and requires so much knowledge that even most people who live this conflict are still unaware of many of its facts, this is just pure indoctrination and exploitation to boost the adult's political ego and agenda, and I imagine at least some of those kids might grow up to resent having been used this way.

I guess that's my biggest hope in that sense.

The millions of German kids who grew up with openly antisemitic parents, who were sent to the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth), who were even at a certain point recruited to fight for the Nazis (some allied soldiers reported having taken captive German kids as young as 8. Many German teen soldiers actually got quite a reputation for being brutal fighters, because they were so much easier to mold into fanatics when it came to the Nazi cause), some of them probably grew up to be adults who still believed in that hateful ideology. But some of them, or at least their own kids, were able to step back, and realize what was wrong with what the adults of that generation did, so they ended up denouncing their own parents or grandparents. That's not easy to do. It's true that that did require to a great degree the universal condemnation of the Nazis and their antisemitic, genocidal crimes. But it IS possible.

The biggest problem we have right now, is that the condemnation of the antisemitism in the anti-Israel movement is not yet universal. There are enough people still buying into the lie that it's "anti-Zionism, not antisemitism," despite all proof to the contrary. And I'm scared of thinking what would it take to make it into a universal condemnation. Especially since not even the atrocities of Oct 7 managed to make people realize how heinous it is to support Hamas. I can only hope it wouldn't take an actual second Holocaust. But I do believe in the capacity of people, even those that adults invested in brainwashing them, to eventually step back, and realize that they were a part of a hate movement, meant to demonize, harass and persecute Jews. To be ashamed of that, to denounce it, and to do what they can to make up for it... Every young German person standing by Jews today, at our time of need, is living proof of that.

So yeah, one day these brainwashed useful ignorants might wake up, and look with horror at what they have enabled and the antisemitism they were guilty of spreading. If not, their kids or grandkids might look at them with shame. Let's hope it's the former rather than the latter. But most importantly, let's not stop working to spread the truth about this wave of hatred and how harmful it is to Jews (and as extension, to non-Jews involved in this conflict as well), by speaking up wherever we can, and try to help get a step closer to that day when the condemnation of this hate is universal.

Thank you for the ask, and please take care of yourself during these scary times! xoxox

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[laurelwen]

Texts in Like Minds: Alex's Essay (deleted scene)

It has only recently come to my attention that a deleted scene exists on some versions of the Like Minds dvd (not the US version sadly). Thanks to @general-theory-0f-relativity, I learned about and was able to see this scene, and I really wish it had been included in the final cut for reasons I will explain in another post. The scene is in their lit class, and it involves the teacher handing back graded assignments. Alex's essay title is clearly legible despite the low quality of the video, and I immediately had some thoughts about it in relation to his character. Unfortunately, the video quality and the shots involved do not allow us to read the title of Nigel's essay other than to determine that is definitely a different topic. This tracks with my own experiences in lit classes and as an English lit major in college; we generally were given a list of potential essay topics to choose from. Based on those two pieces of information, I draw the conclusion that Alex intentionally chose the topic of his paper.

The title: "Compare and contrast Dulce et Decorum Est, Anthem for Doomed Youth, and the Before Agincourt speech from Henry V"

Alex’s essay topic is incredibly common in English literature classes, essentially pitting two opposing ideologies against each other.  The Agincourt speech from Shakespeare’s Henry V is constantly quoted and paraphrased in media, and chances are good that most of you will have heard (or heard of) at least a part of it.  To sum it up, this is a speech being given by King Henry V to his soldiers as they prepare to engage the French in the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.  Facing a dire situation in which they are badly outnumbered, the king is trying to find some way to boost the morale of his men and encourage them to enter a battle in which hope is small and many of them will certainly die.  He does this by appealing to their sense of courage and honor, painting a picture of the glory they will earn for their heroic deeds and suggesting that they will be long remembered and highly praised by their countrymen.  These ideals are used by leaders and nations to lead the reluctant into the horror of battle: honor, renown, courage, brotherhood, duty, and loyalty to a cause or state.  It is the ages-old refrain sold to the common man–that to die in battle is actually a desirable thing, for it proves one’s character and masculinity.  

The two poems mentioned were both written by WWI poet Wilfred Owen, famous for his castigation of war and of the madness of that conflict.  “Dulce et decorum est” refers to a quote from Roman poet Horace: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori - "It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country."  This sentiment is the same as that espoused by Henry V in his pre-battle speech, but Owen calls out the idea as inherently false, deriding it as propaganda meant to lure men into a pointless war.  In this poem, as in “Anthem for Doomed Youth” and the rest of his war poems, Owen vividly depicts the brutality and misery of war. The lived experience of the soldiers undermined the false promises of a glorious and honorable struggle.  The horrors of WWI would forever traumatize an entire generation, and Owen himself would die only one week before the end of the conflict.  

As a side note, it is worth mentioning that Owen met poet Siegfried Sassoon while recuperating from shell-shock in 1917, and it is now believed that they were romantically involved despite attempts to straightwash Owen.  Sassoon encouraged and helped Owen with his writing, including both poems referenced here, and he was the one who collected and published Owen’s works after his death.  (Further reading on the gay war poets.) It's unlikely that Owen's gay relationship with Sassoon was covered in his class, but we know Alex was an extensive reader who pushed outside the boundaries of what he was taught. He could have discovered this information on his own.

While the comparison itself is extremely common in English lit classes (a quick Google search will show you a number of essays on this exact question), I find it a particularly interesting choice for Alex.  As someone who questions authority, rebels against rules, and rejects conventional ideologies, it is fitting that he would be drawn to write an essay examining this conflict between ideal and reality.  Knowing as we do his feelings regarding the hypocrisy of the Church and the causes and wars they engage in, one suspects he likely ascribes to the same sentiment as Owen–rejecting the propaganda of patriotism and sacrifice in the service of a Cause sold by those with self-serving interests.  I tend to think this character trait is one of the main factors influencing his interactions with Nigel–on one hand, he is reluctant to support any notion of a higher purpose or cause, but on the other, he is intrigued by a cause which paradoxically espouses iconoclasm - attacking or assertively rejecting cherished beliefs and institutions or established values and practices.

As a small side note, both actors' filmographies include WWI movies: Tom Sturridge in Journey's End and Eddie Redmayne in Birdsong. After his starring role in Birdsong, Eddie became interested in WWI and has been involved in projects honoring and remembering those involved in that war. Here's a video on FB of him reading another of Wilfred Owen's poems, "Asleep". I had a past life/WWI AU idea based on the story of Owen (Nigel) and Sassoon (Alex), so discovering this scene was absolutely chef's kiss perfection for me.

[stupidsexymecha]

HA Saladin

The Saladin is a hardy and efficient platform for full-squad support shielding. Based on early defense-oriented versions of the Genghis, the Saladin became the stuff of Armory legend following the exploits of Harrison I “Fearkiller” during the Interest War. Since its first iteration, the Saladin has proved successful in a defensive and support role; it has even become a mainstay among Union Department of Justic and Human Rights liberator teams engaged in emancipation and refugee escort missions, despite the ideological (and, often, tactical) friction between the Armory and the DoJ/HR. Records from these engagements indicate that the Saladin’s massive bulk alone was a comfort and morale boost to DoJ/HR troopers and their charges, many of whom referred to the mechs as “Big Sal”. Union-flagged Saladin pilots often report null balances on bar tabs following engagements in emancipated systems.

[weirdbeancurd]

Attempted Apologies- ULTRAKILL Fanfic

Gabe gets the shit beat outta him. (but don't worry its kinda funny)

Takes place in an AU where the prime souls live, and Gabriel and V1 live on the surface as apocalyptic roommates. (oh my god they were roommates)

Summary: Gabriel attempts (key word: attempts) to apologize to Minos and Sisyphus for their executions, but it doesn't go as well as he had hoped. Chapter 1 out of 2.

Perhaps this wasn't the best idea. It certainly didn't seem like it as he traversed the endless winding halls, a labyrinth of books and furniture. Gabriel's anxiety was through the roof, and no level of self soothing was helping calm his nerves. Yet he had good reason to worry; his life was on the line, and he would very much like to keep his newfound mortality. Gabriel had left his swords and armor at their shared base with V1, hoping to show the two he meant no harm. Looking back, it was a stupid idea. A profoundly stupid idea. But tucked deep within the recesses of his mind, a part of him hoped they'd smite him on the spot, contradicting his yearn for survival.

He'd tortured, abandoned and murdered so many; Gabriel wouldn't fault anyone for hating him, especially his victims. And among those victims, he found himself ruminating over 2 notable executions: the killing of the kings.

Sisyphus put up a good fight, but was spared no mercy, liberating his head from his neck in one swift chop. He died with a smile on his face. While notoriously violent when need be, he was a just ruler that cared for his people. His existence was a morale boost in and of itself. Gabriel remembers the husk's wailing screams, their leader's lifeless body on the floor. It might’ve been for the best if the insurrection succeeded. He'd hate to face his post-mortem wrath.

Minos, on the other hand, was honorable beyond belief, his kindness knowing no bounds. His crown was filled with flowers gifted by the very people he so cherished. Out of everyone, he deserved his fate the least. Forced to watch his once prosperous city be demolished by his own hand and struck down under the false pretense of peaceful negotiation. It was cowardice. Gabriel doesn't know what'd be worse, Minos forgiving him, or the king crushing his skull. At least he wouldn't have to suffer the guilt of his actions if his head was caved in.

Guilt and regret was why he was here, after all, and he was dreading it. Gabriel heard from the machine that the two kings reformed as prime souls, freed from their respective prisons. It left them alive, if only barely, hoping it could get more blood from them later on. When V1 first told him, Gabriel nearly screamed in frustration. They sealed those two away for a reason! They might destroy heaven or hunt him down with (admittedly rightful) vengeance! Or… he could apologize and right his wrongs. He was far from redemption, but regret gnawed at his very being, and for good reason. Maybe releasing the prime souls was a blessing in disguise.

Gabriel ventured to the lust layer with shaking hands. If the two kings were still standing, they'd meet at Minos's castle. They were close friends in life despite their vastly different ideologies, and the kingdom Minos built was still perfectly habitable. The city was breathtakingly beautiful, the violet skies bleeding into every surface, pinks and blues painting the town. He silently treaded the empty roads, buildings lining every street. Gabriel made the mistake of peeking in one of the houses out of curiosity. He found two skeletons hugging one another on the bed, their eternal embrace on display for all to see, hands lovingly intertwined. He might've thrown up.

It took a while for him to get to the castle, purposefully stalling his entrance by pacing the streets. Eventually, he couldn't stand the silence and approached the castle stairs. The interior was just as stunning as the exterior, if not a bit repetitive, hence him getting lost, where he is now. Gabriel wanders for what seems like hours, whether it be from procrastination or the confusing, forking hallways, he does not know. Finally, he hears a voice: a very familiar one. They sounded like they were laughing, gruff yet jovial. Sisyphus. Another voice responded with clear amusement. Their tone was calm but regal. That must be Minos. His heart clenched in dread. What if they kill him before he gets to apologize? Would they even hear him out? Pushing his anxieties aside, he raised a quaking fist to the door and knocked thrice. 

The conversation turned into uncomfortable silence. They knew everyone else in hell was dead, apart from him and the machine. V1 never knocks, so the kings knew only one person could be at the door.

"...If you are who I think you are, you may enter. But be warned, I cannot guarantee you will leave here alive." Sisyphus drawls. His voice shakes the very foundation of the castle.

That wasn't exactly the warm welcome he was hoping for, but it will have to do (it's not like he deserved one, anyways). Steeling himself and prepared for anything, Gabriel presses his hands against the double doors and pushes. What he saw left him in shock.

He was greeted with the sight of a modest stairway leading up to two thrones, a long dining table to his right. One of the thrones looked like it was haphazardly dragged over and placed next to the other. But what really caught his eye was the figures those thrones belonged to. The man sitting on his left was glowing a pale white color, his see-through skin putting his circulatory system out for display. Gabriel's heart sank when he recognized the crown atop their head: Minos. The king was left with a gaping hole where his face was, an unmistakable reminder of when Gabriel's sword pierced his skull. His guilt weighed heavily on his shoulders.

The second man was similarly transparent, but the shining star that replaced their head glowed with such ferocity that he could barely make out their facial features. The missing head made it obvious who he laid his eyes upon: Sisyphus. Unlike Minos, he stood with barely restrained fury, likely for the other king's sake. While Minos was taller than he remembered, Sisyphus towered over both of them. A bolt of fear struck through Gabriel's body.

"Come to gloat, have you? Ever so confident, you have the audacity to face us unarmed." Sisyphus bellows. Minos stares in stern silence, letting Sisyphus do the talking for him.

"Though we have grown in power, we grant you no mercy, as you have done to us.” He cracks his knuckles. “Come forth, filth, and die." 

Like the obedient weapon he is, Gabriel does what he's told and approaches the two kings. Sisyphus readies his fists; Minos finally stands from his throne. Gabriel stares back at the two; his judges, jury and executioners. As he reaches the stairs, the kings prepare a fighting stance, and Gabriel, he-

-he kneels before them. 

Baffled, Minos lowers his hands. Sisyphus has confusion written on his face but does not relax in the slightest. Wary, yet hopeful, they listen for what he has to say.

"...I'm sorry. For your executions, for your people, for everything and everyone I've ruined. I know words will never be enough to redeem myself, nor undo my wrongs, but I hope it brings you peace to know I deeply regret my actions." 

The two share a suspicious glance. Slowly, Sisyphus turns back to him, giving a nod as if to say, "go on."

"The torment you've faced is unjust. You were just trying to help your denizens thrive, and heaven and I deemed it an offense worthy of death." His voice wavered now and then, but he willed himself to continue.

"It is with shame I say I willingly carried out their word. Now, far too late, I realize it was wrong." 

Daring to meet their gazes, he raises his head. Minos's expression is hard to read due to the gaping hole where his face should be, but his posture seems more relaxed. Sisyphus had finally loosened his stance, standing deep in contemplation. Sweat drips from Gabriel's brow as the two silently scrutinize him. His knees feel like they're going to give out.

After what feels like eons, Sisyphus descends the stairs, approaching with an uncharacteristically kind smile. He says nothing, but Gabriel knows he can see him trembling. The fallen angel rises to his feet with wobbly legs, his height barely reaching Sisyphus's torso. 

"What an interesting turn of events," Sisyphus says. “I’m tempted to say you’ve changed, Gabriel.”

The king leans in close to whisper in his ear, so close that he can feel the heat radiating off of him. 

"But it's too bad you didn't spare us when you were given the chance."

Everything happens so quickly. Sisyphus's expression turns to one of disgust, grabbing Gabriel by the neck and tossing him across the dining table. He's sent careening towards the fireplace, his body landing on utensils and plates, sending silverware flying from the force of the impact. By the time he rolled to a stop at the end of the table, he was deeply battered, with aching joints and bruised skin. Yeah, leaving his armor behind was a very stupid idea. Gabriel coughs, a hand cupping his neck to soothe the pain. His eyes flit around the room in a desperate frenzy.

In his panic, he spots Minos on the sidelines, watching on with contempt. His crossed arms say he won't help Gabriel in the slightest. 

Fuck. Nononono. 

Minos's forgiveness was integral to Gabriel getting out alive. Even if Sisyphus still had his qualms, Minos would step in, ever the diplomat. But now, nothing and no one will protect him from Sisyphus's wrath. 

"O' Gabriel. Now dawns thy reckoning."

Gabriel holds out his hand, a paltry attempt at shielding himself. Through sputtering breaths, he manages to plead, "I-I understand you both are rightfully irate, but-"

"You understand nothing."

Sisyphus advances at blinding speeds. He only manages to scramble backwards a couple feet before a palm strikes his chest, pinning him to the table. Gabriel frantically tries to pry his hands away. However, his white-knuckling is futile, for Sisyphus's strength dwarfs his own. He can barely breathe, lungs struggling to make enough room for air, ribs cracking under the pressure. Sisyphus ignores the snapping of his bones, his eyes portraying perfect hatred.

"You took everything from us!" He shouts.

"I know! And I know I cannot erase my sins, like the father once told us! But please, spare my life."

"So you've discovered the father's flaws. I'd congratulate you, if I wasn't about to destroy the very essence of your being."

“Wait-” 

The hand on his chest draws back, only allowing for a moment of respite. Sisyphus’s hand shoots out, grabbing for him. Gabriel evades him, if only barely, lunging across the table. His wings beat the air and propel him towards the door; he’s almost there, if he can just reach the exit maybe-

His hope is shattered by a violent tug at his shoulder. Sisyphus has his wing in a vice grip and he can feel its delicate bones snap like twigs. Gabriel screams as his momentum carries him forward but is held back by the king’s firm hold. Something definitely just dislocated. As if it can’t get any worse, Sisyphus throws him to the ground, which isn’t doing any favors for his broken wing. He lands with a sickening thud. Gabriel clambers away while cradling his cracked ribs, keeping one wing tucked close to his body as every little movement sends pain shooting through his shoulder. His other wing is clumsily flailing around, unable to properly balance on its own.

“P-Please, don’t.” He begs.

“Mercy is reserved for the innocent.” Sisyphus growls.

Gabriel looks to Minos for help, spotting him at the window. The king is staring blankly at his desolate city, seemingly unaware of the fight going on behind him, yet he can tell from his tense stance that Minos knows; he’s just ignoring them. Despite being a known pacifist, that doesn’t mean he won’t allow another to do the dirty work for him. Especially for filth like him.

Gabriel is thrown back into the battle as Sisyphus grabs him by the throat and lifts him off the ground. His toes reach for the floor but miss it by a mile, the king dangling him effortlessly from his hand. He feels his windpipe being crushed, lungs burning like they've been charred. No matter how hard he struggles, he can't escape. This is it. This is how he dies: slaughtered at the hands of a man whose head once laid at his feet. Maybe he deserves this. What will the machine think? Will it go looking for him? Would it even care?

"I'd tell you to say your prayers, but there is no god to hear your pleas." Sisyphus chuckles. "Send my regards to the council then."

Oh, how Gabriel wishes he could laugh. How ironic. In a rare show of generosity, the man loosens his grip just a tad to let him wheeze out his final words.

"I…I do not know where angels go when they die, but I hope to see them in hell." He manages a single huff of laughter. Just out of spite. His eyes slip close, ready for his due reward of death, and waits. And waits…and waits. But retribution never comes. Cautiously, Gabriel opens his eyes. 

He's met with the sight of his captor, utterly bewildered. It appears Minos is equally interested in his words, having moved towards their (very one-sided) fight. Air rushes to his lungs as the hand around his throat drops him, immediately gasping for breath. Stars are dancing in his peripherals and blood rushes to his head so quickly he can practically hear his heartbeat. 

"Explain. Now." Sisyphus demands. Gabriel tries his best to reply, but he can't stop coughing.  Regardless, Sisyphus requires an answer.

"SPEAK!"

"Wha-"

"THE COUNCIL. WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM."

"I killed them, alright!"

His labored panting is the only sound that fills the silence. The two kings have been rendered mute.

"They're…they're dead. All of them." He whispers. 

Brushing the metaphorical dust off his vocal chords, Minos speaks up.

"...But what for?"

They grant him a moment to catch his breath. Meanwhile, he judges their expressions. Sisyphus has gone silent, the gears turning in his head, still glaring with scrutiny. Unsurprisingly, Minos is more difficult to read, but he seems more curious than anything. Schooching to slump against the wall, he lies broken and beaten. He stares at the rafters above, drearily explaining what happened in heaven. He's unsure if his incoherent warbling even gets through to them, but he tries. The fallen angel describes his run in with the machine and the unjust theft of his light. He rambles about the council's misgivings for the father and the only way he knew how to dethrone them with the little time he had left. Between his words, sisyphus takes a seat at the dining table, facing away from them. With an elbow propped up on his knee, a fist supporting his head, he resembles the pose of a cerberus. Minos nods along to show he's listening. Eventually, Gabriel wraps up his tale, eyes shut in complete exhaustion.

"...and I don't regret it. Not one bit."

There's a beat of silence before Minos replies.

"How do we know thou art truthful?"

"Without the father’s light, I cannot teleport. If I was still immortal, don't you think I'd have left by now?" He can't help the bit of sass that comes out of his mouth. Must be the adrenaline high.

"...Thou hast merit."

Sisyphus stands suddenly, nearly knocking over his chair and causing Gabriel to flinch. The movement makes his injuries absolutely blossom with agony. He looms over the former angel as his shadow encompasses his own. 

"Let me make this clear," his tone is much more measured than before. "I do not forgive you. Nor will I ever."

He crumbles under Sisyphus's gaze.

"But, you've shown much growth from our last…escapade. You are a rebel exhumed, and for that, I can respect." 

"I never believed mine eyes would witness a day of justice dawn. Though it was by thy hand, it seems the 'holy' council has met retribution." Sisyphus hums in agreement.

Oh. They were thanking him. Gabriel felt hardly worthy of praise, but if it meant getting out alive, he would gladly play the part of a hero. Relief washed over him in waves, finally settling his nerves. His head felt strangely light.

"I understand your resentment towards me. My goal was not to be forgiven, just to apologize.” Odd. His arms are numb. “Your gratitude for ending the council’s reign is not needed, for their demise is a reward in and of itself.”

Gabriel wrenches himself up to his feet, having to use the wall for support. He takes a single step-

-and promptly passes out. Ah. That would be the adrenaline crash.

“...”

“Have thou perished?”

“...Minos, how do you feel about digging a shallow grave?”

Said man elbows Sisyphus in the side.

(Don't worry, Gabe's not actually dead, this is chapter 1 out of 2)

Still kinda in beta, so don't be surprised if I change this fic around a bit, lol.

Feedback and comments are always welcome! :D

[qqueenofhades]

You know, it remains absolutely wild to me how... like... we know exactly who is responsible for this, where, when, and why. There's a short list of like 10 people. It looks like this:

Donald Trump, for being a fascist narcissistic grifter, con man, and criminal, who nonetheless managed to weaponise enough white grievance, backlash against Obama, voter apathy, Clinton smears from the Republican slime machine, and leftist moral posturing to get elected as President and have three Supreme Court picks, all of which were obtained dishonestly;

Mitch McConnell, for being the absolute worst, not to mention proudly on record as wanting to obstruct everything a Democratic president ever does, a power-hungry shriveled racist who refused to even hold hearings for Merrick Garland and then filled that seat with Neil Gorsuch, colluded with Trump to force Anthony Kennedy to suddenly retire and install drunken sex abuser frat boy Brett Kavanaugh, then jammed Amy Coney Barrett onto the bench to fill RBG's seat, eight days before the 2020 election, in brazen open hypocrisy of everything he had said about SCOTUS and election years, since the only principle that matters to him is maintaining Republican power;

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett themselves, for doing exactly what they were put on the court by theocratic dark money fundamentalist operatives to do, and joining Bush-era fascists Thomas, Roberts, and Alito to overrule Roe vs Wade, as the culmination of decades of deliberate and openly stated Republican policy;

Rupert Murdoch and the Fox News disinformation ecosystem, for creating the alternate reality that made Trump possible and continues to empower his sycophants, supporters, cronies, and other bad actors, and generated much of the anti-Clinton slime and smears that made their way into the mainstream, were endlessly repeated by so-called respectable media outlets like the NY Times, and poisoned the American electorate, already disposed to misogyny, against the most qualified (and historic) Democratic Presidential candidate there has likely ever been;

James Comey, for deciding to issue the "we are still investigating HER EEEEMAILS!" letter a week before the 2016 election, which took just enough off Clinton's increasingly narrow margins to put Trump over the top thanks to the rigged and racist Electoral College, which has often functioned exactly as designed in helping non-popular-vote-winning Republican presidents into power;

Vladimir Putin, for running a well-attested and repeatedly confirmed wide-ranging disinformation and interference campaign in the 2016 election to boost Trump, the Kremlin's pet stooge, and discredit Clinton, as part of his overall and equally well-attested scheme to disrupt and destroy Western liberal democratic institutions and boost Russian power;

And like... in terms of direct, locatable, empirically provable concrete responsibility, that's it. I'm even being charitable and leaving Bernie off this list, though I feel that he played a major part in creating both the 2016 clusterfuck and the "I'm too good to ever vote unless for my perfect socialist messiah" attitude that now prevails among much of the Online Left. That is a small number of names. Their actions are all verifiable in public records and a wide variety of news sources, both partisan and non-partisan. (Protip, anything you can only find in one news source that precisely matches your own ideological beliefs is, uh, deeply suspect.) I'm a historian. I work with verifiable facts and evidence, even if they might lead me to conclusions that I personally don't like. And any wide-sweeping broad generalisation, with absolutely no specific evidence or sources cited, is... not how it works and will get you a bad mark on an essay or research project every time.

So against this short list of 8 people, all demonstrably bad actors with bad motivations, what does your average Online Leftist do? They blame Obama, who "said he would codify Roe vs Wade and didn't!" Well, you might say, did Obama ever have a filibuster-proof pro-choice majority in the Senate? No, he didn't, but that's not an excuse, it just means he and Harry Reid didn't try hard enough (this already after McConnell's announcement about making Obama a one-term president and obstructing everything). Obama had the greatest financial meltdown since the Great Depression on his hands, and then spent all his political capital passing the Affordable Care Act, lost the House in 2010 as a result and the Senate in 2014, and which, despite being an actual, y'know, codified law, has been subject to literally hundreds of Republican challenges to gut, reverse, or overrule it as much as possible? YOU'RE JUST MAKING EXCUSES! WHO CARES ABOUT THE ECONOMY? OBAMA COULD HAVE DONE IT IF HE CARED AND FORESAW THE FUTURE!

Likewise, the left's other favorite scapegoat is RBG, for not "retiring in time" or otherwise precisely predicting the moment of her own death and who would be in office at the time. Literally no blame for McConnell, the one who actually and deliberately crammed the three illegitimate justices onto the bench in defiance of all protocol and precedent. So let's see... the so-called progressives are blaming a Democratic black man and a liberal Jewish woman for the actions of a bunch of evil Republican white men. Or the other laughable false equivalence I saw yesterday, which claimed that ever since the Democrats were elected in 2020, civil rights, LGBT rights, and now abortion rights were being stripped away (with the clear implication that it was their fault). This just happened on its own, I guess, and not because specific Republican-controlled state legislatures and the Republican-packed Supreme Court had deliberately done this as a strategy of pursuing and consolidating fascist power even after Trump's forced departure from the scene. Name one non-Joe Manchin/Kyrsten Sinema instance of the Democrats actively doing the same thing. I will wait.

This is not even to mention the leftists repeating straight-up QAnon propaganda about how Joe Biden is a racist sexist child molester and, I quote, "the literal scum of the earth." There are legitimate policy and performance grounds to criticise Biden on: his speech yesterday said all the right things, but it remains to be seen how much of a promised "whole of government" action will actually be made, including the available powers of the executive branch to which Biden, as chief executive, has access. His personal response has, at times, likewise seemed slow and flat-footed. But the Online Leftists have abandoned all pretense of a rational and reality-based critique, in favor of hurling the most overheated personal moral slanders possible, like the Puritans at a witch-burning. Again, I ask, we're supposed to believe that these are the progressives?

I saw a stat recently about how only 23% of American adults use Twitter. That is... not even one quarter of the country. Out of that, the Online Leftists are only a tiny percentage. These ideas are not popular or universal or just something that "everyone believes" outside of a carefully curated echo chamber. It may feel all-encompassing, but it's not, and frankly, its denizens seem to be interested in anything except building workable, practical coalitions, if it would mean taking any criticism or compromising on their exalted ideals (which, as I have noted throughout this post, really aren't as great as they seem). As I've said before, my own political views are as far left as it's possible to go, and yet, I doubtless will continue to receive more messages like the charming anon from the other day who told me to kill myself for being "bootlicking slime." This is how they like to communicate with people who otherwise agree with them on every policy level (at least as outwardly stated and certainly not as practiced). This... kind of seems like a problem.

I've likewise written before about how ideological revolutions to drastically remake societies with the Right Idea have never, ever succeeded, and only bring more pain, suffering, and death. To all those people preaching "revolution!" as the solution: you realize that all the idealistic young students manning the barricades in Les Miserables get shot, right? And that it's not an actual, legitimate political plan, not least because it isn't a plan? It's a reactive coping-mechanism magical-thinking wish that everything bad would just magically disappear in a burst of glory, and everything would be better now. It's comforting to daydream about, but it's not something any sane, rational adult really puts any stock in, since it's never something that has ever worked in history. What revolution? How? When? Surely you don't mean like the January 6 rioters, unless you do, since overthrowing the illegimate government with overwhelming violence is, oops, once again straight out of the right-wing playbook. Still waiting for those promised progressive ideals!

Basically, even in the unlikely event that they actually acquired it, I wouldn't trust the current crop of Online Leftists with power any more than I trust the Republicans, despite them outwardly sharing my beliefs and values. They haven't proven that they're interested in anything except punishing those who don't hold their exact narrow and rigid idea of "moral" views, blaming other people who again, think largely or entirely like them, threatening or using violence against anyone who disagrees with them, and finding ways to constantly excuse and ignore the actual perpetrators of illiberal Christofascism. All, again, while claiming to be progressive! Like the AO3 anti crowd, who thinks that perfect morality in the world can be achieved by aggressively and abusively policing the fiction that people write for fun in their free time, it's about using cult-like techniques and tactics to position the entire outside world as the morally inferior enemy and building in-group solidarity by attacking them. Which seems like, oh, I dunno... Trump supporters. Again. Womp womp.

I don't know. Call me an old person; I definitely am. But as terrible and cynical and generationally damaging as the Dobbs decision is, and how it represents the greatest legal denial of personhood and autonomy to American women in most of our lifetimes, there's something even worse about seeing the generation who claims to "know better" blaming the people who opposed it, excusing the people who did it, and then going straight into more nonsense about why it's not actually bad and/or twisting themselves into pretzels to invent the hypothetical (white, rich) woman who somehow won't be affected by this. Maybe that's just me in thinking that is a profoundly flawed and wrong response on literally every level, but you know, I suspect it's not. So yeah.

[apas-95]

I always took Mao’s quote, that the communists need not fear the truth (and should actively seek it out and never embellish or hide it) because the truth is on our side, somewhat for granted. I thought, somewhat naively, that while it was correct, it was surely rhetoric that any ideological trend would adopt.

How wrong I was! With the outbreak of the imperialist war in Ukraine, and the immediate, glaringly obvious falsehoods of Ukrainian state propaganda - with The Ghost of Kiev, Snake Island, Zaporizhzhia, exaggerated claims about Russian losses, etc. - the common liberal position openly declared lying and hiding the truth to be beneficial to their stance. By opposing and removing any reports of Ukraine’s defeats, no matter how accurate; and supporting and spreading any reports of Ukrainian victory and strength, no matter how false; the rhetoric went, you were Boosting Ukrainian Morale.

To what end, exactly? If the situation really is hopeless, if the Russian army really is about to encircle a town, isn’t it better for the people of Ukraine to know? To not throw themselves into a lost battle, to not take vain hope that yes, the west really is going to start flying jets overhead any hour now, the Russian force will retreat if you just hold out and sacrifice for a few more days - is this type of rhetoric, this false hope, not getting people killed, not prolonging a horrible war? But, remember! They wouldn’t be supporting this war if they cared about the people of Ukraine. They are not communists, they are liberals, and therein lies the problem.

The truth always serves the people. The communists stand for the people, and the truth serves them. The truth does not serve the liberals, the capitalists, the war profiteers and imperialists. Who do these lies help, if not the Ukrainian people? They help Raytheon, surely; the longer this war goes on, the more missiles are spent, the more military stock is destroyed and annihilated and ordered for replacement, the more they profit. They help BP, surely; the more disruption to Russian gas lines through Ukraine, the greater the demand for US gas in western Europe, the more they profit.

I would say that they help the US imperialists in their geopolitical goals, of isolating and weakening Russia, of knocking down any EU aspirations of independence from the US, etc, but really, all these things are in service of the prior two. The point of isolating enemy states, of weakening alliances, of endless war, is to gain profit for US corporations - they’re the ones running the show, lobbying the legislature, writing the laws... even drafting the propaganda.

[mwolf0epsilon]

"Star Wars isn't dead y'all are just haters" "Disney saved Star Wars" "It's the Woke Agenda that ruined Star Wars"

My mans, Disney single-handedly destroyed the Sequel Trilogy despite the Force Awakens being the gateway to something potentially fantastic; MCU'd the Mandalorian (a story which originally had nothing to do with the Prequel and OG Trilogy aside from sharing a universe and exploring a sect of a completely different culture/ideology); ego-boosted both Filoni and Favreau to the point where their OC Verse is not only canon but openly disregarding the Star Wars Universe Bible/Lore; gave us a snippet of what an extremely misunderstood indigenous culture is actually like (instead of portraying them as the savages one of the white leads mislabeled as animals that deserved to be slaughtered) only to then wipe out the tribe we got to know for no reason other than shock value thus alienating indigenous/poc viewers in the most disrespectful way possible; completely threw away the entire message of TCW (that being a clone does not make you incapable of being your own person who has their own thoughts, ideals, moral compass and overall identity) by making TBB (a show that does have it's strong points in set design, soundtrack orchestration and overall sound design, but is extremely weak on both characterization and storytelling because they either make the meaningful plot points stretch too thin or focus on the wrong character completely) their go to show marketed for kids instead of the actual kids programming that people shit on for being for, surprise, kids; constantly disregards valid critique from their consumers (to the point where infighting in the Fandom has gotten extremely ugly) that people either give up on interacting completely or simply vanish and take all their things with them (because no one seems to understand where these critiques come from, or how being unable to admit your special little show is imperfect is actually not a good thing for both you and others).

This isn't even accounting for the fact the Fandom seems to have doubled in it's overall toxicity since Disney took over. Which is par for the course when a mega corporation takes hold of something that started out extremely political in nature anyway. The Cash Cow machine needs feeding after all...

[l0gic1]

The Inclusivity Facade

Like the name suggests, ‘inclusionists’ often perceive themselves as the inclusive side. They see themselves as martyrs—morally righteous individuals guided by a one-track goal: to promote “inclusivity” and “compassion” in all areas of life, particularly in LGBTQ+ discourse. Admirable, right?

However, despite what it might seem like on the surface, the core principles of inclusionist rhetoric are not based on actualized inclusion. Instead, they are based around dogma, control, blind acceptance, exclusion (surprise!), and sometimes even abuse. Inclusionists typically spread their value of “inclusivity” by blithely accepting any identities, no matter how contradictory, illogical, or unscientific they may seem. They will claim they believe in inclusivity, yet they are notably exclusionary towards those of different beliefs. They will claim they believe in compassion and understanding, yet they will send death threats or threats of violence to transmedicalists, exclusionists, and others that don't conform to their ideology, tell them to harm or kill themselves, verbally abuse them (cyberbullying), enable their eating disorders, claim false and derogatory things about them, dox them, engage in online harassment campaigns, attempt to silence dissenting opinions through mass-reporting, etc.

As such, the vast majority of inclusionists (it is unfortunately not a small but vocal minority, as one might hope) are as averse to basic human decency as a vampire is to sunlight. The truth is that inclusionists, for the most part, are not really trying to spread “inclusion”. Instead, they use the deceptive veil of “inclusion” as a way to make them seem better than they really are; if you present yourself as someone who stands for such an agreeable ideology (inclusion), people are more likely to perceive you as a virtuous person who stands for virtuous things.

That said, their actions often reveal their true intentions. In reality, inclusionists are quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as intolerant, bigoted, or even evil. They have no interest in understanding different perspectives or engaging in meaningful dialogue. Instead, they resort to unethical, damaging, and even borderline abusive behavior patterns that make a genuinely positive shift in society and online discourse virtually impossible. It becomes readily apparent that their supposed commitment to inclusion is nothing more than a facade to boost their own egos and maintain a false sense of moral superiority.

What inclusionists fail to realize is that inclusion is about creating a space where people feel respected and valued, regardless of their opinions and intrinsic qualities. This doesn't mean one should welcome people who are bigoted or hold harmful views, but rather that creating an environment where differing perspectives can be respectfully challenged and debated is essential to intellectual growth and fostering a culture of critical thinking. Inclusionists should understand that true inclusion involves embracing diversity and allowing for open dialogue, even with those who hold opposing views. It is through respectful engagement and the exchange of ideas that we can foster empathy and understanding and ultimately work towards positive societal change. By excluding individuals solely based on their opinions, we risk perpetuating echo chambers and hindering progress in our collective pursuit of knowledge and enlightenment.

[cursed-40k-thoughts]

Okay what would you think about a space marine swimsuit calander to boost moral in the Imperium?

I think it would work for sure. The Imperium's sense of aesthetic is so laced with religious ideology and enforced notions of what pertains to valuable when it comes to the human physique that the sight of a largely undressed marine would send them into (shameful) paroxysms of lust.

You know those bodybuilders that Definitely Don't Use Steroids? The ones who are so overmuscled and aggressively contoured it's disturbing? In the Imperium that is the gold standard of physical attractiveness.

Plus you can have the marines posing while coyly tracing their carapace ports and doing cheerleading pyramids and shit which would be kind of amazing

[max1461]

Something I've thought for a long time is that there's a significant missing mood in "race realist" belief systems, and it's not one I've heard anyone else talk about. Namely, that race realism should make you feel lonely. It's always struck me that, humans being the only species we know of with human-level intelligence (however you define that), we are terribly alone in the world. There's no one else to talk to besides us. There's no other perspective we have access to besides the human perspective. This is, to me, a deeply scary thought, and it's why I hope we'll encounter intelligent alien life within my lifetime. Race realism posits an even smaller social world, a world in which only certain subsets of humanity are really on par with one another, and in which everyone else might as well be ignored. Implicit in "white people (and Asians, or whatever) are genetically superior in all the ways that count" is something like "why be friends with anyone else? why talk to anyone else? what could they possibly offer you?" and to me this would be a seriously troubling thought.

I feel similarly about "Western chauvinism" and related ideologies. The idea that Western culture is superior to all the others, the origin of all worthwhile morals and all modern technology and so on and so forth. Isn't that distressing? That all there is that's worth knowing and doing comes from this one tiny subset of culture-space and of humanity? Doesn't that make you feel lonely, boxed in, uh, existentially bored? I think it would make me feel that way.

And I know that many race realists and Western chauvinists and so on would say that they don't hold these beliefs in the absolute: there are still some worthwhile contributions of non-Western cultures to the world, there are still some valid reasons to be friends with someone of a less intelligent race, whatever. And, ok, but this only changes the degree of the missing mood, it doesn't eliminate it entirely. And based on the rhetoric of most of these people, I don't think it changes the degree of the missing mood by very much.

There's a saying, "if you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room". These ideologies seem to consistently posit that their adherents are not just the smartest people in the room, but the smartest people in every room, that they're the very top of the pyramid and that's that. And I get that that would be an ego boost, but like, do you really want that? Doesn't it feel lonely up there? Don't you yearn for an equal to talk to? On an individual level and on a societal level? I think I would.

[obiternihili]

there's a class of shitbag that are incredibly wrong on some issues but happen to make noise for a just cause now and then by accident

and i kind of want to fully examine the ethics of boosting them when they're accidentally correct

twitter is just. "ignore them". ok. yeah they're liars. they'll use the audience they're grifting to weaponize against the good causes they're against.

but like

the victims in the conflict du jour have less power. the media is united in trying to manufacture consent against them. entire states are lining up to drink the blood. their supporters in their diaspora or just generally abroad are lynched, silenced, or disappeared. (am I talking about the Palestinian genocide, the Uyghur genocide, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, Ukraine war, who? this should be understood as a generic situation with a generic problem).

can you really afford handicapping the just cause by not allowing it to use the shitbag class? death isn't a temporary setback you can just make up for with the power of anime and hardwork. being a better person isn't going to bring anyone back by itself. every death is an incredible loss, both in the human sense and the game theory sense of losing.

And like the reverse of the shitbag class exists too. Like, say you agree generically that the shitbags' usual supporting team is warmongering and evil, but on one of the situations they're accidentally correct, which makes a whole lot of people really against the shitbags take a wrong position? An example for a progressive leftist who sees the Ukraine as actually fighting against an invading fascist state might be the way people like Roger Waters or Jeremy Corbyn reacted to supporting Ukraine. shit like https://aeon.co/essays/settler-colonialism-is-not-distinctly-western-or-european but you could generalize the moral problem to other ideologies i think

so like

strategies, right?

you could do the right thing and just cut off the shitbags and litmus test away the people like corbyn or said or whomever and handicap a dialogue

you could do the wrong thing and just unquestionably support antisemites or racists or islamophobes or whomever

it seems to me that there's a third strategy

just block people knowingly speaking false information because that's a more immediate issue orthogonal to the bigger ethical issue I'm trying to get at

selectively support honest shitbags when and only when they're saying something important and worthy

attack them when they try to pivot to things they're wrong about

like the issue with platforming them is obvious. but it's a high stakes game and sometimes you need to say things you don't believe but your audience would believe in order to convince them of something.

like i don't believe the us government actually exercised due diligence to highest of international standards in our pursuit of alqaeda. I don't believe the monetary cost to the taxpayer supplied Israel with weapons is a major moral issue compared to the civilians being bombed. but if i'm writing a republican congressman trying to get him to call for a ceasefire I'm gonna have to use arguments he might be convinced by, like, "israel is being irresponsible with our money, they should be using a surgical tactic like we used against bin laden" even if i don't believe we were particularly surgical invading iraq or afghanistan or bombing weddings or torturing people without trial or the rape of fallujah or whatever.

but does it really matter if a ceasefire vote were ever to pass if the voter did so because of humanity or because of ghoulish solely-financial reasoning? do the dead care because the vote to ceasefire failed because one guy who might have been swayed by the ghoulish argument so beneath us didn't hear it? Would the dead really appreciate whether it were a social justice motivated politician or a financial responsibility motivated politician casting a vote for ceasefire?

the mixed strategy's problem mostly seems to be it's ability to failure mode into the "wrong thing"

but like. the "wrong thing" is going to happen anyways. some child or idiot is going to get wrapped up in shit, and respond by becoming a terrible person. the grifters are going to grift even if they always grift for good causes.

there is no litmus test for goodness. palestine doesn't work obviously. you can't just take palestine and ukraine or palestine and armenia or uyghurstan and tigraya or whatever.

there's no litmus test. alternatively every thing is yet another step in an increasingly terrible litmus test. every single issue at this scale is mind breaking and people are going to overreact to the trauma at some point, and learn things like "turks are untrustworthy fundamentally" as an armenian tried to tell me or "japanese things are disgusting" as a woman who lived through the japanese occupation of shanghai accidentally showed me.

is there even a way to soberly, analytically assess the danger of the mixed strategy? how do you quantify the number of lives saved by letting your pet bastard have a go at the podium? how do you quantify the number of lives damned by letting your pet bastard have a go at the podium?

etc

[potteresque-ire]

The Big Politics Meta

0. Introduction; content notes and warning >> 1. The Boring Overview: 3rd Time is the Charm? 2. The Political Legacy of 2/27: A Hypothesis 3. Case Report of a Traffic Robbery, Committed October, 2020 4. Two Stories about a State-approved, Top Traffic Star 5. Afterthought: The Big Environment

(Below the Cut — 1. The Boring Overview: 3rd Time is the Charm?)

It’s October, the month that can leave a mark in Chinese history. 

Starting on the 9th is the so-called 兩會 (”Two meetings”) — the 7th Plenary Session of the 19th Chinese Communist Party Central Committee (七中全會), and the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (第二十次全國代表大會). By the end of the month, the world will know whether President Xi will enter his 3rd 5-year term as the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, and by officially breaking the previously established term limits, also become China’s next potential Dictator-for-Life.

The outcome is, of course, highly significant to all Chinese people, but it’s significant too for this little corner of ours. After all, our turtledom of overseas Gg and Dd fans have also felt the effects of President Xi’s ideology. The genre (Dangai) that has brought us together has been axed under President Xi’s governance, and we rarely see our favourite stars showing their idol roots anymore, with all the restrictions on hair color and earrings and traffic etc. Readers who have followed this blog (❤️), you’ve seen me talk (rant) about the various marks President Xi has left in c-ent over the last 10 years: how the industry has been steadily less about entertainment and more about being the propaganda apparatus for the Chinese government; everyone being tasked to being promoters of core socialist values (including paparazzis) and the ever elusive, hard-to-define 公序良俗 public order and good customs, and punished heavily, and / or in ways unfit to their misdeeds, when the celebrities among them fail. TV stations have been reprimanded by the government for being “too entertaining”, and forced to “restructure” their popular, entertaining shows. Beloved genres of little use to propaganda, from Dangai to time travel to imperial court drama to horror to romance, have had their creative spaces drastically slashed by censorship rules, if not destroyed altogether. 

A Hong Kong news site made this infographic about the punishment of entertainment celebrities between 2001 to 2021, and the type of controversy (legal/political/moral/not-own-fault) that led to their punishment. The y-axis represents the severity of the punishment, from not at all (top) to very severe (bottom). The x-axis represents the year. Each dot represents a celebrity, and the color of the dot, the type of controversy surrounding the celebrity. I put a box around GG’s name: his controversy was “not-own-fault” (purple). The number of celebrities being punished, and the severity of their punishments, both increased significantly in the President Xi era (2012-2021). (Source)

Even dramas that boost the image of the government have had an increasingly difficult time passing the content audit — Being a Hero, for example, has a very much delayed broadcast (the series was filmed in 2020); its marketing was also lacklustre compared to other series of the same summer period and, critically, being of a genre that traditionally fare much better in viewership when co-broadcast on TV (i.e., air simultaneously on one of the TV satellite stations, or on CCTV), BaH chose to air without such a TV co-broadcast. While it can never be confirmed, the rumoured cause has to do with BaH’s story touching on drugs, undercover, officials involved in crime — all of which had once been acceptable topics but were, in the summer of 2022, considered sensitive. The series’ marketing being arguably unprepared was because, allegedly, BaH aired just days after it had got its net broadcast license. It didn’t co-broadcast on TV because TV broadcast requires an additional license with even stricter content requirements, and to wait for such a license to get approved may mean the series will never meet its audience, should the content restrictions tighten even further as they have the last several years.

President Xi’s fingerprints are, really, already everywhere in our fandom.

And whether he will continue to be the General Secretary, the President and China’s Paramount Leader, whether his “New Era” ideology will continue to dictate the country’s political narrative, will have an effect on to-be-aired projects by Gg and Dd too.

Example: Gg’s Where Dreams Begin, which is about the “Reform and Opening Up” 改革開放 era of the 1980s and 1990s：

This era has become a political-sensitive issue. It has been for a while, but it has become even more sensitive in the months leading up to the National Congress.

“Reform and Opening Up” has become a bit synonymous with … “No More Xi”.

The background is this: with the strict Zero-COVID policy that limited the flow of goods, people and money, and the heavy-handed crackdown of multiple big, lucrative industries in China over the last few years, China’s economy hasn’t been doing well. This is the kind of not-doing-well that almost everyone can feel the effects of: it isn’t limited to, for example, the housing market, or the stock market. It is people failing to receive income, while seeing no decrease in their daily expenditures. People in lockdown are often unable to reach their jobs; they have increasingly been required to pay for the compulsory quarantine and DNA testing — because the provinces, which are supposed to pay for the central government for these services, are out of money themselves. People who are lucky enough to keep their jobs often have their pay slashed, or delayed for months. There have already been several instances of banks freezing their clients’ accounts, denying withdrawal requests. 

In July, holders of frozen deposit accounts protested in front of a bank in Zhengzhou, Henan. They were eventually beaten up by “unidentified men” (Source and Video), who had nonetheless been seen to have arrived at the scene with the police. Earlier on, many of the account holders had found their Health Code — the government-issued, mandatory COVID pass on their cell phone — turning red without reason. A red Health Code bars its holder from travelling anywhere.

Enter “Reform and Opening Up”, referring to the direction of the country envisioned, and then executed by the Paramount Leader after Chairman Mao, Chairman Deng Xiaoping 鄧 小平, to savage the economy destroyed during the Mao years. 

Dissenters of Xi have been missing, and asking for the return of “Reform and Opening Up”. The era was marked by, among other things, China’s mass privatisation — ie, the government loosening its control on the economy… 

... along with all areas of life, including speech, including entertainment. I recently introduced the Taiwanese singer 鄧麗君 Teresa Teng, the singer of Dd’s Mid-Autumn BGM, 但願人長久, who became super popular in China during the 1980s. Despite disliking her, the government didn’t ban her, nor did it punish the people for liking her.

According to its screenwriter, 蘆 葦 Lu Wei, Farewell My Concubine got its approval for release in 1993 from Chairman Deng himself. The production company had already been reprimanded by the Ministry of Culture and the Department of Propaganda for making the film, and its head, made to write a letter of repentance, when investors submitted a copy of the film to Chairman Deng via his daughter. Chairman Deng watched the film and approved it, saying that it only required minor modifications (Source).

(The relative political freedom of “Reform and Opening Up” came to an end in June 1989, when the People’s Liberation Army opened fire at the protesting students on Tiananmen Square. Even though Deng was more open-minded than Mao, mobilised, passionate youth with a unified cause also proved to be too much for him. The Chinese Communist Party got their power, consolidated their power via youth movement and knows what the latter can do, is suspicious and frankly, terrified of it.)

(This is a very important point to remember. As a preview, this attitude likely explains the Qing Lang “Clear & Bright” Campaign, the current crackdown of fan culture, and “traffic”.)

(Fans are mobilised youth with a unified cause of supporting an IP. A genre. A hobby.) 

(A star.)

President Xi is widely believed to be not a fan of “Reform and Opening Up”. After all, Chairman Deng was clear about his policies’ aim of 撥亂反正 righting the chaos from — ie. the mistakes of — Chairman Mao. President Xi, meanwhile, has imitated Mao in multiple ways, reframed Mao’s mistakes as something more benign — The Cultural Revolution, for example, has been reworded as a “difficult exploration”. President Xi also, critically, removed the most important safeguard Chairman Deng put in place to prevent another Chairman Mao from happening again — the 10-year term limit on the General Secretary, the head of the CCP post.

If President Xi doesn’t like “Reform and Opening Up”, then why does this term, this era still matter? China isn’t a democracy; the voices of dissenters among the general population hardly mean a thing — this Spring, we have seen 26 million people in China’s most affluent city wishing to leave their homes to buy food, to buy medicine, and given the deaf ear for two months (The Shanghai Lockdown). Who has been talking about “Reform and Opening Up” that have the ears of c-pol watchers perked up?

The answer: the premier 李 克强 Li Keqiang, the Number 2 Man of China after President Xi.

Premier Li has repeatedly mentioned “Reform and Opening Up” in his public appearances over the past few months; an economist by training, he has insisted that that it is necessary for the country’s development. Does it mean his boss, President Xi, is actually more okay with “Reform and Opening Up” than he appeared to be? President Xi has never really talked about “Reform and Opening Up” himself — the narrative from his recent speeches has been focused on the great victory against COVID and the West, and on the “Two Establishes and Two Safeguards (兩個確立, 兩個維護) — which is about, essentially “Obey No One but Xi, Obey No Party but the Chinese Communist Party” (Really). 

Are President Xi and Premier Li merely playing a strange version “Good Cop, Bad Cop”, with President Xi playing the nationalistic hand and Premier Li, the pragmatic hand? But then, it makes little sense that the clip of Premier Li’s August visit to Shen Zhen, in which he said China’s Opening Up must continue because 黄河長江不倒流 — “The Yellow River and Yangtze River don’t flow backwards”, i.e., we can’t go back to the past — was censored on Weixin. Premier Li had also, intentionally or not, embarrassed President Xi before. While the propaganda machine had been on full blast touting President Xi’s eradication of poverty in 2020, Premier Li, as the head of 國務院 State Council, the chief administrative authority (i.e., it does the stats and numbers), went on record to say 0.6 billion people in the country  — more than 40% of the population — had an income of < 1000 RMB (140 USD) a month. 

(The poverty line for China’s median income, by OECD’s standard, is 1148 RMB a month. In 2019, China introduced its own standard of 333 RMB a month.)

(There are two ways of eradicating something: eradicate it, or change its definition.)

This, to many political watchers, signals that President Xi’s ascension to Dictator-for-Life may not be as smooth, as sure as it appears to be. How much support, or opposition has President Xi met behind the scenes?

Is Premier Li a collaborator, or dissenter of the President? Is he a contender for some, or all of President Xi’s official titles come the National Congress? But Premier Li has never been truly politically powerful; before this year, his public appearances were few and far between. He, and the so-called 團派 “League Faction” he represents, has had their influence significantly diminished during the Xi era. 團派 “League Faction”, BTW, broadly refers to the politicians who’ve risen up the ranks of the party via the Communist Youth League 共青團, who are mostly of ordinary, “plebian” background and joined the league as most university-educated youth of the country have, and worked their way up. This is in contrast to the so-called Princeling faction, which President Xi is a member of, who are made up of descendants of powerful Chinese political figures.

Something that has long baffled c-pol analysts: The Xi family were victims of the Cultural Revolution. Here, President Xi’s father, 習 仲勳 Xi Zhongxun (wearing the placard) was being publicly denounced by his fellow comrades as being an “anti-Communist”. Xi Zhongxun would be absolved in the Deng era and become an advocate of “Reform and Opening Up”, and introduce its policies to the city of Guangzhou. (Source) 

Premier Li may not the only person possibly not standing on President Xi’s side. Inside Zhongnanhai 中南海, the headquarters, the … palace of the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing (it is really in a former imperial garden), there are the Elders — the power men who once served in the government but have now retired — who participate in the workings of the government via convos behind close doors and who, traditionally, have a say of who gets to be China’s next Paramount Leader. 宋 平 Song Ping, an Elder and one of Communist China’s founding fathers (he’s 105 year old), also said, recently and allegedly, that “Reform and Opening Up” is a must for China.

Allegedly, because the video isn’t available to the public. Allegedly, because Song had made the statement during a semi-private event, and the statement was, allegedly, edited out of  the video. 

Even if Song had made that statement, how much his words  — or the words of any Elder — still weigh in 2022 is unknown. 

For those who’d like to have an entertaining look at how Elders influence the election of Chinese leaders, the movie Election by 杜 琪峰 Johnnie To is a good choice. The movie famously used the election of Hong Kong mafia leaders as an analogy of how the process worked.

This is power struggle, Chinese style. It’s the opposite of the loud, incessant, (annoying) shouts of ‘I’m Good and They’re Bad’ in the pre-election months in the United States. Every piece of info comes with more questions than message, more smoke than view. China’s social media is eerily peaceful these days, Weibo hot search being filled with light topics — often from entertainment when just after the rapid succession of celebrity cancellation in the summer of 2021, hot search had been off limits to tags related to entertainment for a while. Outside the hot search, netizens have found their posts restricted in traffic (ie. cannot be reblogged), their images turning into more broken links in a seemingly random manner. While such methods to prevent information spread has always been around, they are usually not employed so widely, so indiscriminately.  Nonetheless, with the counter-methods Chinese netizens have developed over the years to avoid triggering the censorship filters, rumours, some of them wild, continue to fly under this guise of peace — the latest, as some may have seen on Twitter, is about a military coup and President Xi being under house arrest (it has been proven false; this article went into detail about the elements that hinted on the rumour’s falseness). This isn’t something one can see in Weibo posts at all, however, not even a netizen or two just wondering: I’ve heard this ... something. Is it true?

When the power struggle in China does make noise, it often does so under the guise of something else. Support of Zero-COVID policy is now understood by the politically aware to be synonymous to support of President Xi’s brand of ideology.  Even the less politically sensitive among Chinese netizens have become largely aware that Zero-COVID is now a political movement, that the wellbeing of them as citizens of China may matter less than the political purpose it serves. 

An anti-COVID banner, which said: “Coronavirus isn’t scary, as long as everyone listens to the Party” (Source)

Last month, there was a major accident involving a bus carrying people out of the city of Guiyang for quarantine, resulting in at least 27 fatalities. The thing is … all passengers were not only COVID negative, they had been under lockdown in their homes for the previous two weeks, ie. the chance of them having been a close contact of a positive case was essentially zero. But the local authorities had decided to move them out of the city anyway — the government-issued deadline for reaching a zero case count for the city was coming in two days. The people were therefore smuggled out of the city overnight, using a highway that was usually closed those hours because it was unsafe to use in the dark. Making this trip even more dangerous was the condition on the bus, which was also specified by the government: the driver and passengers were all to wear the white, stuffy PPE suits, the driver was to  wear a N95 mask as well and the air conditioning must be turned off, the windows must be closed at all times and there could be no eating or drinking on the bus, as there would be no restroom breaks for anyone. Only the driver knew where the bus was heading and the trips were often hours long — this one was expected to take four. 

The bus often turns into a steaming sauna room under these conditions; heat exhaustion is common among the passengers by the time they reach their quarantine locale. 

And the drivers had complained about not being to see well with their mask, the steam and the heat. The night hours also mean they are often tired, and the food + drink + bathroom bans mean they can be even more uncomfortable while having to drive. 

Accidents like this one were ... a matter of time.

And all of this, all of the discomfort and suffering and lives lost, only because the local authorities needed to report a victory against a virus on a certain day to the central government. The COVID virus, these little spheres of RNA with some spikes for decor, are now treated like a human army on the battlefield, an opposing force that can be crushed in a certain, pre-scheduled battle. Those in the country who wished for a scientific approach to the virus, the most famous among them Dr 張 文宏 Zhang Wenhong, also called China’s Dr Fauci by some, were censored and attacked by pro-Xi, nationalistic netizens. Dr Zhang was called a traitor, a blind follower of Western beliefs.

(He was called similar names when he had suggested children to have egg and milk, ie protein, for breakfast, instead of the traditional, 100% carbohydrate Chinese congee). 

The Guiyang bus accident was attention catching enough to make the hot search for a day. At first, it was described as an accident involving a tour bus. It was only later, when the truth spread and public opinion could no longer be contained, that the tour bus’s purpose was made clear. The local authorities apologised, signalling the end of discussion of the matter and the hot search was removed. The smuggling of people for zero COVID counts continued.

Whispers, despaired and anxious, also continued, by people not tagging their posts to avoid triggering censorship filter. We’re all on the same bus, these netizens said. They understood what had happened to that bus of passengers could happen to any of them — Guiyang was far from the only place that smuggled people out to reach the zero case goal, and even without the smuggling, the bus ride to quarantine in broad daylight was little different. It headed to the unknown for the passengers, where conditions could be frightfully poor, where they would be left there for an unknown number of days. 

All they needed was one tiny, invisible COVID viral particle to intrude their community.

Disease-prevention personnels, colloquially called 大白 Big White because of the PPE they wear, guarding against the escape of travellers trapped in the airport of Xishuangbanna when the city went into sudden lockdown on 2022/10/04. Angry travellers confronted them, asking why they were pointing their guns at their own people (Video). Big White can be medical personnels, police or other officers under the uniform.

Does it mean these lamenters are dissenters of Xi? Not at all. The propaganda has portrayed COVID as a fearful, deathly virus (and it is one, especially in its early days), and most of them do not wish for their country to emulate the (evil) Western countries and let the virus loose, let the people die. They are willing to do what they can to prevent the virus from spreading — it’s just that what they have to do now terrifies them. 

Anyways …

Just as support of the Zero-COVID policy is now understood to be synonymous to support of President Xi, support of “Reform and Opening Up” is now understood to be, if not anti-, then, at least skeptical of President Xi and his ideology, the direction the country is heading under his leadership. To prefer “Reform and Opening Up” means to prefer a focus on the ailing economy; and to cure the the ails, the Zero-COVID policy, President Xi’s pride, has to be the first to go.

Eventually, President Xi’s Maoist tendencies have to go as well. Because of China’s development during the “Reform and Opening Up” era and its subsequent decades, “Reform and Opening Up” also carries the implicit meaning of opening up the country’s economy to the rest of the world, of forging foreign cooperations in general, which is in contrast to President Xi’s “Warrior Wolf” style hostility towards the West, and his encouragement of “internal circulation” — expansion of the role of the domestic market to Chinese economy — that has been taken to mean shutting the doors to international economy and community. 

This is how “Reform and Opening Up” has become a politically-sensitive term.

And when “Reform and Opening Up” becomes a politically-sensitive term, so do media projects about the era, such as Where Dreams Begin. Where Dreams Begin will likely be all right —this February, one of the companies producing the series announced that it had been chosen as a sponsored project of the Beijing branch of NRTA. 楊 夏 Yang Xia, the producer of Where Dreams Begin (and The Untamed), was not only spotted at the 11th Congress of the China Federation of Literary and Art Circles (CFLAC) in December 2021, but carrying a title (中國電視藝術家協會新文藝組織和新文藝群體工作委員會副秘書長) that hinted she had connections at the right places. This was, after all, a conference that President Xi attended and spoke:

President Xi, speaking at the 11th Congress of the CFLAC, 2021. (Source, including the full text of his speech, which touched on the moral requirements of the arts community. No concrete guidelines were given; the prose was largely rhetoric.)

Still, the content of Where Dreams Begin will likely be scrutinised by auditors again right before airing. 獻禮劇, the special genre of TV and film that not only had a propaganda element, but is devoted to the glorification of the government and CCP must, in particular, be current with the message the government intends to spread. We may have seen another example of this very, very recently:

On 2022/09/27, the Chinese military officially “upgraded” the categorisation of its first homemade stealth fighter jet, J-20, from 4th generation to 5th generation. It also confirmed J-20′s deployment to the Taiwan Strait. In the media, the categorisation of the fighter jet had been divided between 4th and 5th generation, with the 4th generation categorisation still found in a state media social media post as late as May 2022. Such an official categorisation change, a demonstration of China’s prowess in military technology, would have to be immediately reflected in propaganda projects depicting the J-20, including the movie Born to Fly, which was originally scheduled to premiere on the same day.

The airing time of propaganda films and series are, therefore, necessarily affected by the political climate, by the choice of Paramount Leader whose ideology decides the appropriate message to spread. If the Paramount Leader continues to exhibit touchiness about “Reform and Opening Up”, for example, then, having a drama about “Reform and Opening Up” airing and hanging out on hot search may not be the best idea.

Best to wait till he looks away.

While I am at this, I should clear up this something that may be confusing. Perhaps some of you have noticed that I’ve used the term “Paramount Leader”, instead of President, or General Secretary, the latter being the post he may be getting his third term for. Is Xi being the General Secretary for the 3rd term equivalent to his continuing to be the Paramount Leader? What, exactly, is the Paramount Leader?

Hmm. I’d say, there’s a … 99.9% chance that General Secretary = President = Paramount Leader. It isn’t a rule though. Hence, the not-100%.  Meanwhile, unlike the Presidency, the Paramount Leader is not an actual position one can hold. Rather, the Paramount Leader is the person recognised, by implicit understanding, to be the person who’s really calling the shots. 

Xi’s official titles are President (中華人民共和國主席), General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (中國共產黨中央委員會總書記), and the Chairman of the Central Military Commission of the Chinese Communist Party (中國共產黨中央軍事委員會主席). Of the three titles, “President” is actually least prestigious, with the least numbers of actual duties and many of which are ceremonial. “President”, moreover, has always been occupied by whoever is serving as the head of the Chinese Communist Party (ie, the General Secretary), and the Commander-in-Chief of the People’s Liberation Army (ie, the Chairman of the CAC), even though no laws dictate that it must be that way.

In other words, the General Secretary and Chairman titles are where the power really is. This is why President Xi’s being potentially the General Secretary for life is such a big deal.

From the recently published, succinct guide on the National Congress by BBC: a recommended read. 

This also means, hypothetically, that it is possible for Xi to remain General Secretary but lose control over the military and along with it, the Presidency and Paramount Leadership — and this has been the scenario anti-Xi people have hoped for. The General Secretary failing to be the Paramount Leader has, in a way, happened in the past. There was actually a leader between Chairman Mao and Chairman Deng, 華 國鋒 Hua Guofeng, who held the highest offices (including the head of the CCP and Commander in Chief) between 1976 and 1981. However, his leadership was mostly seen as the continuation of Mao’s in the first two years, and afterwards, Deng usurped his power and became the de facto Paramount Leader.

So, Hua was a “he-is-but-not-really” Paramount Leader, despite holding the equivalent title of the General Secretary.

Deng would demonstrate another way to be the de facto Paramount Leader after he officially retired in 1990. His influence would remain larger than his successor, 江 澤民 Jiang Zemin, until when he finally, truly retired in 1994. With that, he showed that a Paramount Leader can even be a regular citizen; between the years of 1990-1994, Hong Kongers pointed out the absurdity of this by calling (former) Chairman Deng 鄧 普通 Ordinary Deng. 

Along this line of thought, a not-100%-impossible, reverse scenario of Xi keeping his titles but losing his Paramount Leadership would be his installing a puppet, stepping down from all his positions, and remaining the de facto Paramount Leader.

Anything is possible in the country when a person, a party is above the laws.

Complicated, isn’t it? Hence, October 2022 is a time for observation. Even if President Xi held on to all his titles, political analysts and also, people who must stay current with the government’s message — including those who work in propaganda, including c-ent — will be watching for clues to how much power he actually retains. Aside for looking for evident changes in his policies such as Zero-COVID, other things to watch for include, for example, what positions will his close associates win or lose? Where will these positions be won or lost? Positions in the four direct-administrated municipalities 直轄市 — Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing — are prestigious; those in poor provinces like Guizhou, not so much. Will President Xi get to place more of his people in the nice places? If so, he will be considered the true winner of this round of political struggle. If not, how ugly will their downfall be and who will be the people taking over the lost positions? Will they belong to the League Faction? The Jiang-BigTech Faction? Princelings? How many times will Xi’s name get mentioned on the front page of People’s Daily? In Xinhua News? Where on the front page? On top and at the center? At one of the bottom corners?

It’s ridiculous, I know. It’s incredibly exhausting too. But then, this is China, and there are often no better, more reliable sources of information.

* Phew *. Okay, enough of these title things. Now, I think I can finally get to what I intended to talk about when I started this meta (* facepalms at all the words above *) … something more relevant to us turtles, a question that is more likely to be on our minds. It’s understandable why c-ent is being so watchful now, why investors and companies and cast and crew have to expect their projects being affected by the news, the decisions coming this month. But why are certain stars — all right, let’s be specific here — Gg and Dd so … quiet?

As turtles, we have double the number of favourite stars, both being so beloved and beautiful and ... we’re supposed to have double birthdays with double the amount of equally popular and easy-on-the-eyes material to celebrate. We should have double the joy and fun. And yet, both birthdays this year were so … quiet.

It’s difficult to not feel a little let down, isn’t it?

Other stars …  we’ve watched them, and they’ve laid low too — compared to 10, even 5 years ago everyone has laid low (Weibo 10 years ago was WILD compared to today). But they have still been more active. And those who also have birthdays this October, this close to the two meetings, still celebrated. This time of this year being politically sensitive doesn’t seem to adequately explain the so-quietness of our boys. 

Then, what is it?

What is it they have, or they carry, and other stars don’t?

[mariacallous]

Uganda’s parliament is set to debate a new anti-gay bill next week, as the country’s president called for a “medical opinion” on the deviancy of homosexuals. The bill, besides criminalizing homosexuality, also criminalizes the “promotion” and “abetting” of homosexuality and follows a January parliamentary investigation into an alleged promotion of homosexuality in schools. It’s no surprise, given how rampant anti-gay sentiment is in the country.

In September, I came across a video that was going viral on Twitter in Uganda. In the video, 26-year-old Elisha Mukisa, who is reported to have been previously imprisoned on defilement charges, speaks for a little over eight minutes detailing how he was lured as a minor into acting in gay porn by Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG)—a nongovernmental organization (NGO) based in Kampala working to support and defend LGBTQ+ persons in the country.

The video caught my attention for several reasons. The first was the anti-gay rhetoric it catalyzed in the following days and the corresponding moral panic. In the ensuing conversation on social media, SMUG was defined as a threat to children that parents had to watch out for. One Twitter user, @Ashernamanya, wrote: “Uganda must be for God Almighty not for Bum lickers the Gays. SMUG an NGO is recruiting young children into Homosexuality and acting the gay. They need to be arrested.”

The previous month, the Ugandan government had shut down the organization. The country’s NGO board released a statement after the announcement, claiming that SMUG’s registration was rejected for being “undesirable.” Mukisa alleged in this video that the shutdown was because of evidence he had provided to the NGO board.

The second reason the video kindled my interest was that it added to the growing list of instances of mass media being weaponized in Uganda to propagate the “ex-gay” narrative, in which a person claims to have been “lured” and “recruited” into homosexuality. It was also organized by the Family Life Network’s Stephen Langa, who in March 2009 put together a similar seminar called “Exposing the Homosexuals’ Agenda.” The language and presentation of luring and recruitment (as though it were a job listing) were not, in fact, novel to my ears, and it is a phenomenon I have seen across African news media.

It has deep links to white evangelical Christianity and is an export of a made-in-the-USA movement and ideology that is polarizing African countries and harming and endangering LGBTQ+ people.

While it looked innovative, it was not the first time such a press conference was creatively planned to spark panic and parade out a person claiming to be ex-gay. It was also not peculiar to Uganda; it is a method that was and continues to be used in both puritanical and evangelical Christianity in countries from Ghana to Kenya and Nigeria.

From the days of European colonialism, when sodomy warranted the death penalty, the church has been the face of the anti-LGBTQ+ movement and has deployed language and framing consistent with present-day ex-gay movements.

The rhetoric relies on a “prodigal son” framing that checks out with the Bible, in which gay people are only valid as long as they turn away from their sexuality. (In the Bible story, the prodigal son’s welcome was contingent on his return in the same way the evangelical church would only welcome gay people on account of their conversion.)

When the pro-conversion therapy Christian group Exodus International put Yvette Cantu Schneider and other ex-gay spokespeople on TV in the 2000s to talk about being formerly gay, it was because of such beliefs. Schneider herself wrote on Instagram that a straight white male leadership team handpicked her. (Exodus International ceased operating in 2013.)

The post reads in part: “They were looking for a spokesperson who had been gay. And I was told, ‘you’re gonna be great because you’re young, you have the Hispanic last name, and you don’t look gay.’”

This same belief seemed to spawn the Mukisa video, the homosexual recruitment press conference, and other such events. The prodigal son parable has propped up the ex-gay movement in Uganda, ensuring there are open arms to gay people who can speak about previously being in that life of “sin” and denounce their gayness publicly. It seems that as the ex-gay movement lost its grip in the United States, it started to reach for relevance elsewhere.

In 2009, George Oundo, whom news reports described as a former trans woman and LGBT activist, went on a media tirade in Uganda on how they got initiated into homosexuality at 12 years old. Oundo said in a TV interview that they “recruited many, many boys in Jinja”—a town in southeast Uganda. They also published a book titled My Long Journey to Victory: Bound by the Chains of Homosexuality.

In 2018, Val Kalende, an LGBTQ+ rights activist who even went on a U.S. State Department-sponsored tour in 2010 for her activism, went on TV during a church service to renounce lesbianism. Kalende in 2022 wrote an op-ed titled “Unchanged: A lesbian Christian’s journey through ‘ex-gay’ life,” in which she apologized to Uganda’s LGBTQ+ community for her renunciation.

The church has been involved in manufacturing and sustaining the ex-gay framework in more than subtle and metaphorical ways. Evangelical preachers have traveled across Africa, verbalizing this harmful language.

In the early 2000s, American evangelical Scott Lively was part of a series of anti-gay events that culminated in Uganda’s 2009 “Kill the gays” bill, which called for the death penalty for what it described as “aggravated homosexuality.” Lively had written books such as The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party and Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child against what he described as “pro-homosexual indoctrination.” The bill—which Lively opposed as too harsh—was introduced after Lively spoke at the March 2009 conference organized by Langa that hosted U.S. representatives of the ex-gay movement.

On that same trip and speaking at the same conference as Lively were evangelicals Caleb Lee Brundidge, who said he was formerly gay, and Exodus International board member Don Schmierer. Schmierer spoke on a lack of good upbringing as a cause of homosexuality and was quoted as saying that 56 percent of homosexuals experienced abuse as children, which turned them into homosexuals.

Following that conference, Lively also spoke to the Ugandan Parliament, where he framed homosexuality as a Western import intending to spread “the disease” to children.

This recasting of homosexuality as akin to pedophilia, alongside the widespread use of similar language, is meant to legitimize the response and crackdown by governments and institutions. If gay people are not successfully framed as predators, then extreme measures against them could be questioned. However, the violence that LGBTQ+ people experience in Africa has been justified by these anti-gay groups through the construction of a narrative of intent by “them” to target children.

That same rhetoric drawing connections between homosexuality and pedophilia has remained largely unchanged from how evangelicals created panic around gay people in the early days of the anti-gay movement. In a 1981 letter, U.S. preacher Jerry Falwell described gay people as out to “recruit,” saying “many of them are out after my children and your children” and that they “must not be recruited to a profane lifestyle.” Falwell also added that gay people threatened families because they didn’t reproduce.

It is similar to the rhetoric of individuals such as Peter LaBarbera, who in 2007 falsely claimed that there was “a disproportionate incidence of pedophilia” among gay men.

These comments on recruitment, destruction, and being a threat to families now cloud much of the discourse around homosexuality in several African countries. They were present in the Mukisa press conference, are currently in use as Ghana’s Parliament debates a draconian anti-gay bill, and continue to swirl across the anti-LGBTQ+ movement on the continent. In an African context, visits and speeches from prominent Americans such as Lively and Falwell have the effect of legitimizing homophobia; their straight white male identities crown it with credibility.

I do not mean to exonerate Uganda, Ghana, or other African countries of homophobia or suggest that they are incapable of it without external backing. They are.

Even though LGBTQ+ identities had existed in Africa since before colonialism, their existence was not always welcomed and tolerated. For instance, while homosexuality to the Zande people in South Sudan was indigenous and commonplace, they were harsher on women; lesbianism was considered witchcraft and could even warrant execution.

Abrahamic religions have exacerbated homophobia, and it might have become prevalent on the continent without U.S. evangelical backing. This trend is clearest in Senegal, a majority-Muslim country, where the capital, Dakar, used to be considered Africa’s “gay capital” but is now experiencing rising homophobia. Just last year, protesters lined the streets of Dakar demanding stricter laws and longer prison sentences for gay people in the country.

However, claiming that homosexuality is uniquely Western offers the United States’ ex-gay movement the opportunity to present itself as being on the right side of history, as being close to the sources of “moral decadence” but still resisting it. For Ugandan and African homophobes, the reverse is the case. It gives them a premise for absolution—an anticolonial veneer that allows them to say, “This was brought here from abroad, and we need to eradicate it.”

Proponents of ex-gay and anti-gay philosophies depend on the permanence of gay people for their message to be relevant. They require an enemy for their fight to be valid, and they go to great lengths to construct this enemy as a well-funded and all-powerful foreign movement while falsely presenting the local anti-gay movement as a grassroots underdog, despite its heavy reliance on U.S. evangelicals for publicity.

[springmarshmallow]

Quick thoughts on ch353

Looking back on it, these child panels felt a little off as the precursor to this one, probably because they weren't meant to be interpreted as Shouto saving Touya fully, but rather just physically saving him from burning up - which is a painful thing to do given the circumstances because it should never have come to this - this being a bitter fight where Shouto had no other option but to overpower his brother and knock him out to even have a chance to continue working on bringing him back on the right path.

It's primarily a portrayal of the tragedy of these two brothers and Shouto shows it in this chapter.

He clung to his hope that things could be changed and Touya could rejoin their family and still does, but the process itself is a difficult and painful one and he's still in tears over it while the heroes and his friends get a morale boost from it - a perfect encapsulation of bittersweet.

Though this new development with whatever is happening to Touya at the end may just give him another chance to convey more to his brother and may improve the chances of Touya listening as he may not feel outdone or forced into compliance.

I still think this turn of events was unnecessary and could have been avoided by not having Touya start burning himself to the bone immediately to extend the fight but it is what it is

Also interesting that Touya's fellow villain attracted by Stain's ideology, Spinner, seems to share Touya's view on having a purpose in life and seems to think it's better to live for someone else's ambitions, to give your life for a purpose no matter how self-destructive and twisted, rather than have no purpose at all (a sentiment Touya echoed when he berated Shouto for his lack of conviction two chapters ago). I wonder if we will have that much fabled Shoji focus after all, given he is there to confront his fellow mutant. I'm sensing Kurogiri will be pulled into this and as Tomura's caregiver and his Shirakumo side being just a tiny bit less suppressed, may turn against AFO to help the child he looked after, which may help in swaying Spinner and possibly lead to some portal shenanigans that may also lead both Deku and/or the Todoroki boys to get where they need to be for their part in the final confrontations, because the chapter title indicates we may just be kicking Enji's arc back in motion again.

Edit - reading the translations, my single biggest fear from this chapter though is that if there is some sort of detonation trap inside Touya that AFO is taunting Enji with, it could lead to him being the one to save Touya which may just make Shouto's efforts a stopgap at worst or make what he does of secondary importance at best....

[apollo-cackling]

[You often see it claimed that] season 6 is pessimistic and I actually don't agree. It's heavy, harsh, and dark, but I believe at the end of the day that this is actually one of the most optimistic seasons the show has ever produced, which is why I want to close this discussion off by focusing a bit on the show's tone. It gets dark, [and] if you were put off by these darker tones and themes, I can't say I blame you, but in a way I think that's why the season works so well. Contrary to escapist or comfort media, which offers an easy refuge from real life struggles, season 6 embraces conflict and human imperfection. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting your art to be comforting, of course, [...] but at least in my opinion, a lot of what bills itself as escapist comfort media does so because it asks us to specifically look away from life's problems. #notallescapism obviously, but there's this sentiment that's gained traction lately which posits that the creation and consumption of such media is almost a form of resistance itself, and I'm not personally fond of that. Being cozy or wholesome or whatever becomes almost a moral prescription. I know creators whose work has been categorized that way who hate it for that same reason. Jay Dragon, designer of the amazing ttrpg Wanderhome (you really should check it out) has talked about how their work being labelled as wholesome can not only often imply a sort of derision toward works that focus on pain, but can also create limiting expectations for their art. And indeed, I've increasingly seen works that like to categorize themselves as cozy or hopepunk not just as a way of self-labelling but as an implied condemnation of uncomfortable or darker fiction. There's this pervasive implication that focusing on darkness, [and/or] not using fiction as a way to envision a better world is in some way contributing to harm. It suggests that there's this inherent virtue in optimism and depicting coziness that surpasses all else. That's not to say critics of Buffy season 6 should be painted under this light, of course — not at all — but I do think season 6 is an excellent response to it. Season 6 confronts this ideology head on by presenting a narrative steeped in realism and darker themes. It doesn't just offer escape or easy answers, it challenges the viewer by illustrating the complexities of life with a starkness that's often uncomfortable. And at the end of the day, despite all the pain and tears it gives us what I think is actually an incredibly hopeful message: life is still worth living. I haven't dealt with the exact same things Buffy has — I didn't die and come back to life twice (it was just the one time for me) — but I have been in those times where nothing seems to be going right where I just watch my bank account go down and wonder if I'll have enough to make it through it all. I've dealt with struggling with my mental health in a way I don't feel like I can approach others with, even the people I love the most, out of fear for how they'll feel. I've engaged in self-destructive behavior to give myself a temporary boost in feeling, or just to feel it. All these are all things that I and probably a lot of you have been through, and it sucks and we all know it sucks, but here in Buffy there's catharsis, something that tells me life is hard: sometimes you will struggle with depression, you will struggle with money, your friends will be imperfect support systems, but life is still worth it. It resonates far more with me than something that tells me life is always awesome, and your friends are always going to be awesome and perfect, and so you should be happy with life. I know that isn't always true. If you're going to tell me to smile, I need to know you see me first. Season 6 sees me first. Dawn and Buffy pull each other out of their grave, Xander pulls Willow from the brink. It will be dark. We are still human. We should still live.

so I finally got around to watching the new sarah z video. it's. good.