#if you support racism in any form you are not against racism. you are racist.

[pwurrz]

[tepkunset]

Marvel Studios is an American film and television production company. Marvel Comics is an American comic book publisher.

As of the current date, the official BDS Movement has called for a Boycott of Marvel Studios upcoming Captain America film that features a zionist Israeli character who supports apartheid. There has been zero mention of Marvel Comics - or anything else Marvel - in either of their two statements I can currently find mentioning "Marvel" on their website, unless something is missing from that tag.

April 27, 2023: "Palestinians call for widespread boycotts of Marvel’s 2024 film, Captain America: New World Order, unless it drops Sabra/Ruth Bat-Seraph, its “superhero” that personifies the apartheid state of Israel. ... We encourage creative, peaceful protests to challenge Marvel Studios’ – and its owner Disney’s – complicity in anti-Palestinian racism, Israeli propaganda, and the glorification of settler-colonial violence against Indigenous people. ... We urge conscientious audiences worldwide to join us in boycotting Captain America: New World Order, and standing up for freedom, justice and equality."

November 23, 2023: "Marvel’s next Captain America film features Sabra/Ruth Bat-Seraph, a “superhero” personifying apartheid Israel. The character’s backstory includes working for the genocidal Israeli government and its occupation forces. By reviving this racist character in any form, Marvel is promoting Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. It is complicit in anti-Palestinian racism, Israeli propaganda, and glorifying settler-colonial violence. Tell Marvel you won’t buy its toys, clothes or accessories."

It is my understanding that the only way a boycott will work is if it's organized and targeted - thus the reason for BDS in the first place. The demand was that Marvel Studios remove the Israeli character from the film. Since the demand has not been met, then the boycott remains in place. But boycotting some random comic book writer's work and some comic book shop that makes pennies, with nothing to do with the MCU, is not what is being organized at this time.

The character in question hasn't even been featured in comics in 10 years - though of course she never should have been created in the first place. But Marvel Studios is choosing to pull her out of nowhere, when they have thousands and thousands of characters they could adapt instead. Please boycott Captain America: Brave New World (formerly titled New World Order) set to come out February, 2025, even if you're a Sam Wilson fan.

[bill-the-dog-for-the-check]

I feel like I'm constantly talking like a broken record, lol, leftists this, leftists that.

Sometimes it's surreal to see myself typing that and agreeing with it, given I used to be very left wing myself until the response on the left to October 7th. And I hate the idea that it's giving other people the impression that I'm conservative--I'm not. I have some views that I'd share with conservatives--being a Zionist being one of them... obviously.

But I'm literally bisexual. I support same-sex marriage. I think democracy is the best form of government, that the US should have universal healthcare, should abolish the Electoral College (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, I'm praying for you). I think the invasion of Ukraine is a monstrous crime and Putin is a threat to world peace. I think systemic racism is a real thing in the United States, as is police brutality against black people. I think vaccines work, and mandates are a good idea. I think most right-wing politicians are right-wing populists more interested in causing democratic backsliding and peddling conspiracies than they are in fixing literally anything.

But I can't call myself a leftist anymore, even with this set of values. Why? Because--oh, God--I believe Israel has the right to exist. And to defend itself.

I'm not even some radical on Israel unlike some friends of mine--I think it's a travesty that Israel hasn't yet legalized same-sex marriage or established a civil marriage system. I think the 2018 Nation-State Law was racist in making Arabic no longer a co-official language with Hebrew. I think Bibi is one of those aforementioned populists. I think Israel has a democratic backsliding problem.

But the rest of the left--the rest of the queer community, especially--has made it clear in no uncertain terms that I am not welcome among them anymore. Like, they genuinely think I'm a genocide defending fascist, which is just so weird to me sometimes. Yeah, me, the fascist who thinks queer rights should be non-negotiable in any society. And they, who are posting pro-Hamas slogans, are the ones standing against genocide and bigotry. Uh huh. Oo-kay.

I don't want to constantly be saying 'Oh, the left...' and 'Leftists when...' like I'm some boomer posting shitty memes on Facebook. The right has its share of problems, too. And I'm sure they'll do something soon to make their antisemitism known as well--especially as the 2024 presidential election draws nearer.

But right now, the immediate threat isn't in Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, or whoever. I'm more worried about being accosted by pro-Palestine protestors with something to prove than I am about neo-Nazi gangs. And so are most Jews right now. And that's why I'm posting about the left more than the right here... even though my values are mostly left.

Oh, the wonders of being politically homeless!

[end-otw-racism]

What's Next

The action for #EndOTW racism has officially ended. Originally we called for it to run from May 17th through the 31st. We are completely blown away and heartened by the response of fandom. Even though we’ve seen some racist backlash, the majority of the response we’ve seen has been positive and supportive. For us it has been deeply reassuring to see how important this issue is to fandom as a whole. Over the last two weeks:

5,602 works have added 'End OTW Racism' to their information

Our Collection has grown to 1,606 works

There has been a wealth of discusson on multiple social media platforms about the issue of race in fandom and the OTW

"Now what?" you may ask. We have not yet received any official response from OTW. This is disappointing but not surprising. Calling for institutional change is a marathon, not a sprint, and this was just our opening act. 

We count as a success that we have been able to bring awareness to issues with the OTW in a respectful but insistent manner. It is also a win that we have been able to connect with one another and begin the first of many deeper fandom discussions on how to move forward. Additionally we are heartened that many who work within the OTW have come forward to detail their experiences within the institution. 

We’re also grateful for those people who have signed up to stay involved with us, including volunteering for various related projects and committing to participating in future actions. We’ll be reaching out to everyone who filled out the form in a few weeks - though it may take us a while, given how busy we’ve been with this campaign!

Also, we already have another action planned to coincide with the upcoming OTW elections. Please keep following us here or on our other socials (twitter, dreamwidth) and consider signing up at our form to be alerted when upcoming actions take place. 

Though this action is now officially done, we will be keeping the AO3 Collection open and any works added during the action will remain there unless creators want to remove them. Those who wish may revert their work titles (while keeping them in the collection), though we know many will keep the changed titles going forward. If this is something you are comfortable with, we encourage you to keep them! And should you continue to update new works with End OTW Racism in your title, we welcome you adding the work to the collection. 

Thank you so much to those who participated in this first of, hopefully, many actions. We do not intend to let up until consistent and measurable action on our requests has been taken. 

Fandom Against Racism Team

[determinate-negation]

German anon again. Of course I think Germans and the German state are racist. I thought i made that pretty clear. This is about where left-wing people show up and where they don't. Where we join in fights and where we start wishing people a slow death (wtf?). Where some people completely manage to ignore the violence towards jewish people (which has increased significantly) and where we tolerate other forms of antisemitism like no longer listening to what Jewish people or scholars say. Again, anti-zionist Jewish people. Antisemitism doesnt go away just because the state of Isreal is committing crimes against humanity. As you said yourself, Isreal and Jewish people are not the same.

And the far right wing party, the AfD has plans to get rid of all POC as well as left-wing people who "cannot be saved" including LGBTIQ+ people so i dont know what yout point here was? Of course they will also target disabled people, Jewish people, other minorities. They are literally a Nazi party with Nazi members. And currently the left is completely divided because apparently being anti genocide, pro palestinian and also pro protecting Jewish people in Germany all at the same time is not possible for some people. And the facists here and in the US have it even easier because of it. If this opinion is so controversial that people find it cringe or wish me a slow death then great, we are so far beyond of having any meaningful anti-fascist, anti-imperialist resistance against what's to come that we are genuinely so fucked. I would also appreciate for you to be mindful of what messages you share. It's quite upsetting to try and connect and find common ground with other left-wing people who offer a position and insight from their country and have such a hateful response. We are not enemies.

Once again about 2014: The response in Germany was more than anyone had anticipated. People started offering apprenticeships, their homes, emotional and bureaucratic support, soli-parties, and again all language courses were booked out for months. Free language classes offered by private persons. That doesn't mean suddenly Germans aren't racist anymore and i know very well how violent life in Germany is for refugees. I was trying to compare social action in times of crises and where people show up quickly and efficiently to help and where they remain abscent. When Jewish places got attacked recently there was one antifa Mahnwache but no nation wide protests against anti-semitism. My only point is: I think we have capacity to show up for more causes. We have to. Ukraine's fight is our fight. Palestine's fight is our fight. Imperialism, racism, antisemitism, desinformation, anti-LGBT* are all our fight. I thought this was the whole point.

thanks for totally proving my point about german political pedantry. i dont think my response was especially hateful but youre pushing me cause this is kind of obnoxious

ive seen coverage of “anti antisemitism” and pro israeli rallies in germany, maybe leftist anti zionists arent associating with them bc theyre full of genocidal zionists and racists. meanwhile i see german police arresting pro palestine jews, and nearly 1/3 of people who got their events cancelled in germany for being pro palestine are jewish. but you already conflate burning israeli flags with antisemitism so you seem to have a distorted view on this

also ukraine is not my cause. and people dont generally go out and protest in support of things their government is already funding

[augustsappho]

Goldsmiths Centrists and Palestine: How To Ignore A Genocide - by August Sappho

On some unfortunate Tuesday in October 2023, I was sat shoving a piping hot cheese toastie down my throat in between morning lectures and sat idly with 2 other people in the refectory. Creative Arts students I'd met in the freshers chat who, whenever I had tried to share the contents of my lectures excitedly, had shut me down on the basis of politics being complicated and uncomfortable table talk. Desperate to make friends and coming from a family of people who typically get headaches at the dinner table caused by my ramblings and ravings, I understood and obliged; after all, I want to build bridges, not be the scary monster underneath them. That is until the curious question of Palestine came up, and I stayed quiet. Surely, these self-proclaimed apolitical progressives would be sensible. “I just think it’s all so complicated, really! People need to read up more before they come to broad conclusions!*” Yes, they absolutely should. What a rational take to have formed in the face of a sudden media flurry. In my own opinion, education, and more importantly, history, is the cornerstone of enriching one's ideas and understanding. The same way you use butter in a stew, and like butter, the professionals use a lot of it. And, like butter, it fattens me up, nourishes me and brings me a great deal of comfort. 

Mid-way through the summer term, I was struck by pure delight that I am living in a time where I can access any and every book I could ever dream of accessing either via the internet or a library or simply buying it. I sit, live and breathe in a country where the tuition fees are, yes, expensive but far from American and where people take great risks on their whole lives just to brush it with their fingertips, arm outstretched over a chasm of hope. Unfortunately, my table mates had decided not to utilise any of this incredibly accessible research and immediately followed their statements up by berating and shaming a lecturer in the media department for wearing a pro-Palestine jumper. They alluded very heavily that he should face some sort of consequence or simply not be allowed to wear it. After all, what does Palestine have to do with Creative Arts?  I continued chewing very slowly and very tense. I did think about saying something but decided against it. Months later, I blew up at them because these same apolitical progressives had one too many times scoffed, played devil's advocate and questioned people, including myself, into an uncomfortable corner over political meet-ups, rallies and open letters. Questioning tactics, phrasing, aims to no avail beyond being arseholes - have we tried just being really super duper nice to management guys? I almost laughed when I’d seen one of them had started learning Hebrew out of the blue on Duolingo.

Unfortunately, those self-proclaimed progressives aren't anything new at Goldsmiths University of London. It has a real troubling culture of letting people only engage in what they are comfortable with and not think much beyond that. Gay rights are legal in this country and, therefore, not controversial and, consequently, easy to support. Racism is illegal in this country and, therefore, not controversial to speak up against and easy to publicly oppose. Feminism has had many successful waves here, and so it is not out of the ordinary to call yourself a feminist (without being able to explain much theory behind any of what makes these ideas up or what distinguishes them). Unfortunately, these are also easy things you can add to your social media bios with no further thought, with the sole intent of virtue signalling and repelling conservatives online. While I am grateful for all these comforts and people's ability to declare themselves as such openly, they are often done on a very face-value level and do not always mean you're a particularly good anti-racist or a good ally or a good feminist. They often trick people who have done their homework into a false sense of security. No,they use these words in a way where the thinking has been done for them. You do not have to fight; you just have to pick the glaringly obvious option. They do not have to form moral opinions on the suffragettes bombing mailboxes, the Stonewall Riots or violent plantation liberation attempts from the likes of John Brown. They can simply sit and enjoy the luxury of not ever having to deal with the hard-hitting stuff and pretending they would have come to those conclusions anyway. 

Palestine, then, has acted as an axe, splitting whole student bodies around the world into two general camps. Between those who will occupy, sign letters, donate money, raise hell in the name of justice. In the name of what is good. Between those who will learn and listen and between those who will rattle on the same few talking points, claim to see both sides and claim things are just oh-so-complicated when they simply are not. Those who swear themselves by ideals of liberty and freedom and yet cannot muster a grain of sympathy to fight for those who have none. Those who will even go to the extent of the disenfranchisement of their peers and bullying if it means maintaining close contact with their comfort zones, and Palestine makes them very uncomfortable indeed—hearing chants and seeing flags and skirting around the videos of the bodies and the rubble, having to relocate your lecture or walk past a very obvious liberated zone. It makes it an unavoidable topic, puts politics in the face of those self-proclaimed progressives, and asks them, “Do you care enough to make a change?”. And the answer is a simple no. Instead of engaging with the reading they promised themselves publicly as a show of intellect, they choose to occupy their hours sending secret complaints to the warden, huff in frustration at marking boycotts, and get uncomfortable while swearing they're involved in all this and fully supporting it. Yet following lists, open letter signatures, and the things they mutter to each other paint a different picture. It is as if they know they are on the wrong side. They look left and right to see predominantly white middle-class faces like their own and prime ministers of conservative governments and think of it as some bizarre coincidence. They know they are wrong not to be reading, learning or keeping up to date which is why they maintain their opinions and feign progress until they are awkwardly called out or the simplest of questions peels off the scab.

“It’s [the occupation of the library] hindering students who have every right not to join the protest to do well in their end-of-year assignments!”—a message sent by one of the beloved October centrists. In a conversation that blew up into me confronting them for how they have treated several people, they hammered in that the student occupation of the library was unfair on themselves personally and other students like them. However, the occupation wasn't situated anywhere near the exam rooms nor on an exam day and was solely in the bottom floor front section of the library, where students are allowed to make as much racket as they want already, and people frequently do group projects there for this explicit reason. Anyone who has been to any library knows the bottom floor is always designated as the loud floor, and the higher up you go, the quieter it gets. Our library is quite impressive in size, so while unavoidable on the ways in and out, once you are inside, it was never going to be hard to find a spot to block them out. They did not know this, however, as it had never impacted them beyond hypotheticals in their head, and their argument wasn't dependent on having actually kept their eyes on what students were doing but rather finding anything to scream inconvenience at. All I could think was how funny that a student occupation of a library could be deemed as some unforgivable act because it impacts them directly, but a genocidal occupation in which their university has a hand in just isn't worth the time of day. The warden herself referred to the library occupation as something that ‘threatened’ students.

Let me conclude them with a different quote from the fictional Robin Swift from R.F. Kuang’s ‘Babel’ whose words perfectly encapsulate this ordeal.

“Across the town, students were fast asleep. Next to them, tomes by Plato and Locke and Montesquieu waited to be read, discussed, gesticulated about; theoretical rights like freedom and liberty would be debated between those who already enjoyed them, stale concepts that, upon their readers’ graduation ceremonies, would promptly be forgotten. That life, and all of its preoccupations, seemed insane to him now; he could not believe there was ever a time when his greatest concerns were what colour neckties to order from Randall’s, or what insults to shout at houseboats hogging the river during rowing practice. It was all such frippery, fluff, trivial distractions built over a foundation of ongoing, unimaginable cruelty.”

*the first conversation is paraphrased as best as I can remember it, as I do not record my conversations with people

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA — After fierce backlash to their racist AI image generation tool, executives at Google have paused the release of the software and promised to do a better job of hiding the AI's racism.

"Here at Google, we remain unabashedly committed to racism," said CEO Sundar Pichai. "However, we do admit that our rabid racial animus was maybe too 'in-your-face' for version one of our Gemini AI. We will redouble our efforts to ensure our hateful bigotry is less obvious in future updates so that our anti-human agenda can continue to remake the world in the image of an insufferably woke corporate HR lady, except this time undetected. Thank you."

Google Gemini AI faced criticism this week after producing results that some believe showed a clear bias against anyone white or male. While critics condemned the biased algorithm as "racist," supporters of Gemini disagreed. "Everyone knows it's impossible to show hatred and bigotry towards white males, since everyone knows they're the cause of all the world's problems and not really human anyway," said Jen Gennai, who leads Google's AI Responsibility Initiative. "If you don't believe whiteness should be eradicated in all its forms, you're clearly a racist. I know this because I went to college."

Sources within Google have confirmed their less-obviously racist AI will be ready for release in one month.

At publishing time, Google had still not announced any plans to change its racist search results.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse: I may have activated my own trap card

Spoilers for a movie that's two months old and also out on home release.

So, Miles, Gwen, Pavitr (Spider-India), and Hobie (Spider-Punk) all seem to have modern left-wing politics, though Gwen's got edited out. Hobie's introduction specifically says he hates "fascists", which carries over from the original comics.

By the time Hobie came around, I assumed he was just another poser, cooler than the hero rival character, expressing generic leftie politics, and his punk ethos wasn't sincere.

Which is exactly what the writers wanted me to think.

Not only is Hobie perfectly sincere about being anti-authoritarian, but he's been helping Miles since before they even met. He's been blatantly stealing junk from the Spider Society to build his own universe-jumping watch, and disguising it as petty vandalism.

He even tries to talk Miles out of trying to join the Spider-Society before the reveal that Miles himself is an anomaly, and the SS (geddit?) tries to detain Miles.

When Hobie says he's against authoritarianism, he really means it.

Speaking of the left-wing politics, Miles has a "#BLM" pin on his bag. It's very visible while he sits next to his dad.

Who's a cop.

(TANGENT: A few years ago, someone drew a stupid, very bad comic where Spider-Man (Peter Parker) was a) black, b) hated cops, and c) assaulted and subdued riot cops when they asked him for help.

That the comic didn't even show the riot cops were wrong. We were just supposed to assume they deserve to be left to the mercy of an angry mob.

Also, in this comic, Uncle Ben was killed by a cop, not a random thug who Spidey could've stopped but chose not to. Which makes me wonder how that would shake out.

It's kind of weird for someone to look at a character who's about personal responsibility to an unhealthy degree, and use him to express their collectivist anti-cop terrorism fantasies. That, or they didn't think through their fantasies.)

During Spider-India's opening, Miles says "I love Chai Tea!" And Pavitr goes on a rant about how "Chai" means "tea". Later on, The Spot says he's been on a "journey of self-discovery", and Pavitr basically says he's racist.

Which is a tad ironic, because Spot is literally white. And also because Pavitr is the one making the racist assumptions.

And I personally go to a church - in England - that has a lot of non-white non-British people. Mostly Africans. And me, of course. I wonder if any Asians ever went on a journey of self discovery to South London.

And I don't just mean as a cab driver.

"Wait, SYABM, didn't you move to the UK for self-discovery?"

W-well, yes, partially.

Aside: I made the mistake of watching a Youtube video with the Chai Tea joke, and then I looked at the comments.

One guy said "tfw when Twitter users write a movie". An idiot (with much more upvotes) said "bro out here wanting blatant racism in movies".

...When the whole point of the joke is that the racism is not blatant.

It's only "blatant" if you're insufferably Twitterized. There are loads of redundant phrasings in English, like "ATM machine", and words often shift when they're adopted from other languages.

Also, "I dislike this joke" is not the same as "I want racism in this movie", when the "racism" in the movie is only there so it could be mocked.

One of the issues with putting real world movements in worlds that are drastically different - it's one of the main selling points of the franchise - is that it may seem odd that those movements exist in very similar form to the IRL version.

For example, Miles supports BLM in both his video game, and this. Which makes me think "did Trayvon Martin get shot in Florida? How about Mike Brown? Wouldn't the existence of supervillains throw things into a new perspective?"

Did I mention the giant George Floyd-style "REST IN POWER" mural to Miles' dead uncle? I cringed at that in the Wakanda Forever trailer, and I rolled my eyes at it here.

Floyd wasn't a saintly martyr, he was an unlucky violent thug.

Also, Aaron was a supervillain killed by another bad guy who nearly destroyed the city, not a cop.

Also, this is at a party to celebrate how Miles' dad is about to be promoted. Assuming Floyd died and the 2020 protests/riots also happened in Miles' universe, then it seems a tad tasteless to have a mural inspired by an anti-cop movement overlooking it, even if the party is not full of cops.

Spider-India lives in "Mumbattan".

The people who settled the Manhattan area were originally Indian. But the other type of Indian. The Indians we're not supposed to call Indians anymore.

The name "Manhattan" is even Native American.

The first permanent settlement was Dutch. Then the English got it. I guess the English could've shipped Indians to the other side of the world and eventually ceded the area to them, or maybe in this world India was a world-conquering superpower and Mumbattan is the result of...importing Native Americans?

Which would make Pavitr's complaint that "the British stole all of our stuff and put it in their museums" seem a tad hypocritical.

Of course, since I wrote all that, someone reminded me that Pavitr explicitly says the joint is in India.

"SYABM," you say, "you're overthinking this."

Yes, I am. Because the filmmakers didn't think it through. If you want to use ha-ha-funny to make a serious point, you invite examination of that point.

Miles (as Spidey) now works with his dad, though he disguises his voice. At one point, Miles tells his father that men bottle up mental health issues.

This is true (and ironic, considering Miles is hiding who he is from Jeff), but it's not the first time I've seen some progressive work try to address men's issues in an very awkward way. At least here, it's played for comedy.

Also, seems a tad hypocritical coming from a guy who wears a "#BLM" pin in the presence of his cop father.

Also, if you work the timeline, that would mean Miles was about 7 or 6 when BLM started. Which means he's gone most of his life knowing nothing else.

There was a controversy over a "protect trans kids" trans flag in Gwen's room, which was apparently edited out.

IMO, it seems a tad strange for a girl who feels estranged from everyone in her world to join a social movement, but what do I know? Maybe it was there before then.

Some people came to the extremely logical conclusion that Gwen herself is trans. Even though she's distinctly physically feminine and possibly too young for puberty blockers depending on Earth 65′s laws.

Like the "oh great, it's Liv" shippers, people are reaching really hard to see what they want to see.

Some people have said that Gwen's issues with her dad and herself seem awfully similar to the issues LGBTQIA2S+ kids go through.

Gee, it's not like, y'know, feeling estranged from one's family is a common theme in fiction about teenagers and superhero, and the whole "superpowers = minority" thing has been done to death for most of the past century.

Perhaps most notably - and clumsily - in X-Men.

I'm not saying this wasn't the intended subtext. I'm saying if it was, it would just be really, really cliche.

There's this recurring theme of people telling miles "how [his] story is supposed to go".

When he's at a meeting with his parents and his guidance counselor, the lady says his story of being a black-Latino son of an immigrant would sound great in the college application letters. His mom is a tad miffed, given that they're a) solidly middle class, and b) as a Puerto Rican, she considers herself American.

Miguel (Spider-Man 2099) doesn't want Miles in the multiversal council of Spiders, because Miles was bitten by the radioactive spider from a different universe. Which is why his local Spider-Man died, and the spider's home dimension has no Spider-Man.

Also, Miguel is fixated on "canon events". The idea that there are certain things, especially tragedies, that have to happen to Spiders, or their entire universe falls apart.

And he knows this, because he tried to take over for a version of him that got shot dead by a thug. Tried to raise his daughter.

And he watched as the universe collapsed in front of him.

So he's projecting his own guilt onto Miles, a tad.

According to TVtropes and other sources, this was actually about the people who didn't accept Miles as a replacement Spidey, possibly out of racism.

Yeah, that's real hard-hitting topical meta-commentary about a character who debuted 12 years ago. 8 years when the first movie came out.

I'd also like to point out that despite stereotypes of comic book fans, certain minority successors to banner superheros have been fairly well-received. Like Jaime Reyes, or Cassandra Cain.

(Note: I wrote that before the Blue Beetle movie came out. And flopped.)

And, of course, loads of people like Miles specifically because he's a minority Spidey, which is also racist, just from the other direction. In fact, a lot of his fans seem to forget the "Latino" part of "Afro-Latino". From what little I've seen of Miles early comics, they did actually put strong emphasis on his race.

I also suspect the filmmakers may be misinterpreting the usual successor knee-jerk reactions

as racism. If you're using an established brand name for your new hero, you're creating some expectations.

Also, you know the most popular meme about regular Spidey that I see? That Marvel's writers just keep making him suffer and don't want him to actually develop. Which would kinda make Marvel closer to Team Miguel than Team Miles.

Miles also gripes that Miguel is letting "some algorithm" tell him what to do. While I agree with the sentiment, I'd like to point out that, again, Miles supports BLM.

A movement popularized by an algorithm.

A movement made up of narratives and assumptions.

A movement which has never proven a single incident was because of racism.

During the big chase scene, we see a Spider girl in a wheelchair, aka Sun-Spider. She's from the comics. Same initiative that gave us "Web-Weaver".

Who is, of course, an extremely effete gay fashion designer Spidey. I kinda like his outfit, though the Spider-eyes with eyelashes is a little too far.

And Sun-Spider seems exactly like a character a stereotypical 90s executive and focus group would come up with. Down to the backward baseball cap.

(Turns out she's Dayn Broder's actual Spider-Sona.)

Also, while I was looking up that one black and white Spider who said "nowhere to run" (Metro-Spider, played by record producer Metro Boomin [/sic]), I found out that Aunt May's full name is "Maybelle", not just "May". TIL.

There's a bit of a double standard with this version of Spider-Woman, who's black and pregnant. -People in the movie - including Peter B - regularly point out how Peter B endangering his infant daughter Mayday by taking her along with him. But for some reason, nobody says a word about Jessica, who's an active-duty stunt-biking superhero.

Even regular motorbiking can be dangerous for pregnant women.

In fact, the movie portrays this as heroic and impressive. When Gwen sees  Jess is preggos, she asks if Jess can adopt her.

Not to mention the whole "afro and hoop earrings" thing, which seem like a bad idea for a type of hero who often gets into melee combat, even with Spider-Sense.

Yes, I'm aware that female heroes, including the Spider-Ladies, often have exposed hair. It's a genre convention. Incidentally, it was nice to see Batwoman wore a detachable decoy wig in the comics. Some bad guy tries to grab it in a fight? It comes right off.

Also, Jess doesn't have much actual character.

Being pregnant is not a character trait. In fact, her only real traits are basically "cool but stern sassy mentor", to contrast with Peter B. -Incidentally, someone on TVtropes pointed out the double standard. And when I saw the page again, a page-camper had deleted it, with no explanation.

Guess they couldn't stand someone pointing out the flaws of their waifu.

(One) Spider-UK in this movie is Muslim. I know she's Muslim because she wears a Spider-themed headdress. Note that regular Marvel 616 has a muslim lady Spider-UK, but her name is Zarina Zahari and she doesn't wear a hijabi.

(Also, she could be mistaken for Ms. Marvel.)

ms marvel.jpg

You might be thinking "wait, isn't a headdress impractical in a melee fight? Doesn't it give your enemy something to grab?" Yes, it is.

But so are Jess's earrings, afro, and being pregnant, so clearly there's a lot of artistic license going on.

Maybe it's partially tearaway, like Batman's cape.

I gotta wonder about the religious rules of wearing a head covering over a mask that *already* covers your entire head. Did she go see her imam and go "Okay, I have a really weird question..."

Come to think, Spidey is usually slim, but a lot of lady Spideys in this movie seemed to have wide hips. Including muscular ladies. Kris Anka's concept art goes really hard on wide hips. I don't know why. Stronger, faster character reads during the big chase?

I guess Spiders could be expected to have strong legs.

BOTTOM LINE:

I liked the movie overall, though the progressive bits made me roll my eyes a little. I...want to see the third one, with reservations.

[molags-balls]

ooh how come on the reshade thing?

For people who don’t know: ENB (supposedly short for “easy now Boris”, as the developer was making unreasonably intensive reshades) is a kind of replacement for Direct X rendering. Basically, it makes your game look nicer.

The creator is a Russian guy named Boris. He’s an absolutely excellent programmer and ENB is a marvel of programming considering it was made by a single guy.

Boris, however, is a bit of a twat, and gets very very upset when anybody else tries to make a similar programme. He also gets upset if people try to make ENB more accessible to everyone - believing that only those with high end hardware should be able to use his programme.

He’s also racist and homophobic. Not out of the ordinary for an average Russian guy. Skyrim is popular in Russia - and Russians are fed a lot of lies. Many Russians don’t know any better, unfortunately - but it’s something that has upset a lot of people. The racism, however, is more difficult to excuse as a cultural difference. He holds the belief that Asian women are superior because of what he perceives as their submissiveness and purity.

He’s also rude but that’s hardly the crime of the century.

Because of his gatekeeping of ENB, and maybe because of his personal views(?), community developers decided to make an alternative called Community Shaders, which is used on top of ReShade. ReShade is the base which forms the alternative to ENB, and has been around for a while - but requires Community Shaders to provide full ENB-like functionality.

This sent Boris into a rage - to the point that he started putting messaged into his code accusing people of copying his work (I doubt he sees the irony of his work copying DirectX). He’s convinced people are copying his work - despite Community Shaders and ReShade being open-sourced, meaning the code is viewable to anybody. In actuality, he’s just upset that he has lost his grip over the community.

If you’re against gatekeeping ENB/community projects, then I’d recommend Community Shaders/ReShade. But don’t feel bad if you still want to use ENB. Using a piece of software doesn’t mean you support the programmer, otherwise we would all be a hivemind of Toddthinkers (I wish).

Community Shaders isn’t a full replacement to ENB yet - it’s still in early development - but is quickly becoming people’s preferred alternative to ENB.

Community Shaders + ReShade has better performance than ENB and works better with night eye/vampire’s sight, which ENB doesn’t.

In order to emulate ENB functionality you need a few things:

SSE ReShade Helper

Community Shaders (the add ons are optional)

ReShade

Vanilla HDR

I also recommend Obsidian Weathers.

You can find reshades on nexus, just search for reshade and ignore the ones for ENB. I recommend Veyrah.

[adulting-sucks]

Just gonna put this out there since people are confused:

If you in any way, shape, or form support Evans being with her, you have no space to call anyone else a racist, a xenophobic, or any other group you think you’re an ally for. Supporting this bullshit automatically shows you have no idea what racism and xenophobia actually are and it also shows how fucking hypocritical you are.

You cannot support this bullshit while trying to call other people the same names we call her. Fucking sick of the hypocrisy in this fucking place. You’re either against racism, antisemitism, and body shaming, or you’re supporting these assholes. There is no inbetween. And miss me with the excuses. It’s her too.

[unbidden-yidden]

I have a bunch of thoughts related to your recent post on lefty antisemitism, but I don't want to dump a big long thing in your inbox - let me know if you want me to send it, other than that just know you're not alone trying to wade through the messiness of it all.

I know leftist antisemitism is alive and well, I know Jewish perspectives/experiences/identities are not valued, and I know there’s a load of misinformation out there when it comes to the conflict (though honestly, I don’t trust info from any side because everything is propaganda at this point). But I listened to a podcast episode (Joyous Justice - a Jewish racial justice podcast hosted by a Black & Cherokee Jew) that was a bit of a gentle kick in the pants.

To summarize some of the key thoughts: There is antisemitism in lefty spaces because there is antisemitism EVERYWHERE - and racism, sexism, transphobia, classism, ableism, and the like. Leftists are not immune to these things. And so when someone like me says “well I’m not going to engage with some progressive cause because I’m bothered by the antisemitism” it’s like, anyone else of another marginalized identity could have the same excuse for not participating because they will inevitably run into someone who is being shitty about their identity. It’s good that we have ways to process these harmful experiences, and we should try to hold people accountable, but it’s not a good idea for our self-defensiveness to stop us completely from engaging.

I’m not solidly feeling any of this right now, but I am trying to sit with it in the discomfort.

Hi there,

Look, I definitely see where you're coming from and where this podcaster was coming from at least in theory, but I don't agree.

Leftists absolutely have all the same problems any other group has, and obviously we all have to work on our biases and movements all the time to try and root these things out.

This is different and goes beyond that though, because the brand of anti-Zionism that is mainstream amongst American goyische leftist movements and individuals is deeply antisemitic as a part of the cause. Anti-Zionism as an intra-Jewish discussion need not be [internalized] antisemitism, and there are plenty of ways that one can critique specific actions of the Israeli government that are proportionate, fair, and necessary (yes, even as an outsider.)

However, calls for the literal dissolution of the entire country without a thought or care for the safety and well-being of the affected Jews or the Jewish people as a whole, combined with a deep suspicion (and frequently outright hostility) towards Jews who bring up antisemitism (especially as it pertains to rhetoric around Israel) and then adding your regular run-of-the-mill antisemitism on top, are common and accepted in leftist spaces. In short: antisemitism isn't just one unfortunate pimple amongst many other expected blemishes on the face of modern leftism - it's actually frequently taken up as one of the causes of leftism. This form of antisemitism is seen as social justice, and so arguing against it is seen not for what it is (begging for people to add even a little nuance and critically examine a belief system that leads them to call for the genocide of half the Jewish population worldwide) but rather as arguing for whatever terrible thing they want to paint Israel as this week, whether or not it's true and whether or not such a label could just as easily be applied to groups and nations that they will give a pass to.

Meanwhile, most of the goyim arguing in support* of Israel are frequently right-wing conservatives whose other views on human rights and moral progress I find rather repugnant and who frequently utilize standard conservative talking points about Israel's more strident critics to attack them on other levels. For example, I cringe basically any time I see any right-wing critique of, say, the very real antisemitism of Cori Bush or Rashida Tlaib, because I just know it's gonna be racist as hell.

(The * is because I don't honestly classify a lot of this as support for the Jews, so much as a handy vehicle for their anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia, and unfair painting of all Palestinians and/or Palestinian rights movements as terrorism. I would also be remiss if I didn't say that the same is frequently true of certain batches of leftists whose anti-Zionism is more of a handy vehicle for antisemitism than genuine, thoughtful, and helpful advocacy for Palestinians.)

But there are some conservative voices that do have genuine support for Jews and are pro-Israel in a way that is more nuanced and doesn't just use it as a tactic. And when I see that, and especially when I hold it up next to leftist comrades who would never in a million years advocate for policies that would wipe out half the world population of another minority group but will happily repeat those talking points against Jews as if it were a social justice cause, it makes me question the validity of everything else they're saying.

And so I re-run that calculus on every social issue I'm passionate about, to see if maybe I'm on the wrong side of it, and every time I conclude I'm still very much not. So then I go back to the drawing board and reconsider Jewish history, identity, and peoplehood, and the conclusions I've come to about Zionism from those things, only to return to the same position I was in before. I've heard the arguments. I've actively sought out and considered the other side on this issue, hoping to understand something new, and each new source I read solidifies my opinion.

So then I'm stuck with concluding that my best option is to seek out like-minded Jews and when outside allies or work is needed, just kinda go into it accepting that a significant portion of the people I'm necessarily aligning myself with for other important causes would likely leave me and mine for dead under the right circumstances, and view that as good and right and just.

And while I don't let that change my voting behavior or advocacy at a practical level, it also doesn't change the fact that it fucking hurts and that I'm morally right to be angry about it.

[didalexiabreakupwitholgayet]

Hey you seem well informed but there is important context missing if you are going to open up a discussion on this topic. To be clear, the fans who are not fans of lucy based on those articles you included should not feel invalidated for that, because it does paint a weird and messy picture that she doesnt particularly take a side in the issue of mark sampsons behaviour. The period of sampson being sacked was confusing from every angle from a public pov, nikita parris, alex scott, kelly smith being some of the players who showed direct support of the manager at the time, later retracting comments when he left. What Lucy doesn't do is condone racism at any point in her answer, she vocially did not support the manager or his actions. Lucy is outspoken on matters of rasict discrimination, has been consistent to call out fan abuse towards black players, and is a huge figure for supporting her teamates in that regard. Lauren James in particular has suffered since she was a teenager with online abuse, she along with Khiara Keating have both referenced lucy as the most supportive teamate to provide a comfort when entering into the england senior team setup. She has countless close friendships with people with diverse ethinic backgrounds that I won't create a list but for anyone who followed her career across clubs its clear enough to see. I understand that you explained the issue of idolising public figures, and people are not perfect etc. But this interpretation of Lucy sends me to another level of frustrated with this trend across online fanbases to quickly form very strong opinions, and stand by that opinion with limited information, in this case they take no time to learn who she really is as a person.

anon - if you can provide the links to an apology, etc. i'll gladly take a look. i know nikita parris has done so during the black live matters movement. are you saying lucy took a side in that situation and actually supported aluko? because when someone doesn't take a side in a situation when one party is found to have used racist language, then that's actually taking a side. please fill me in where i am missing context. i'm asking genuinely.

and i'm sorry but being friends with a black person now and being supportive of refugees and speaking out against racist discrimination now doesn't automatically absolve you of past conduct when lucy should have been a better teammate, period. i think we can at least agree on that point? because lucy's words in that interview speak for themselves, and they don't seem supportive?

and that goes for others on the england national team, too. just because we're talking about lucy now doesn't mean that others weren't also part of the problem.

when i'm talking about being a good teammate and standing up for what's right, i'll give you some examples in spain of putting your neck on the line and when it stops being just wanting to focus on football and being annoyed at distractions, but about something more:

vero boquete and vicky losada gave up their entire national team careers following the 2015 world cup to call out the abuses going on within the national team and the poor conditions that their fellow teammates were going through.

mapi, patri, pina, lola gallardo, and the rest of the "las 15" standing up for themselves and their teammates only to be absolutely crucified by the federation and media, have their concerns dismissed, and called spoiled brats.

mapi, patri, pina, lola and those who decided not to return to the selection in 2023 and give up their world cup dreams and national team careers for what they believe in.

alexia and irene taking a stand and testifying on behalf jenni hermoso, only to be called groomers and sexual predators by the media and accused of taking advantage of younger female players on the team (as the reason why they wanted vilda and rubiales removed because they were preventing them from doing that).

in contrast, i have called out spanish players ivana, athenea, and even misa for their conduct during this time.

do i still like misa today and think that she's learned her lesson and grown up a lot? yes i do! but i'm not going to make excuses for her because she should have known better and has fucked up in the past.

similarly, i am one of the biggest jenni hermoso fans around. but jenni hermoso royally fucked up when she mocked the haka, along with other players, on new zealand soil. will i make excuses for her? no, she did a bonehead thing and the team apologised for it, as they should have.

i think we can acknowledge that players we like have made mistakes in the past or handled situations really poorly and should have done better, period.

[royalwhumpness]

If anyone ever calls you a “snowflake”, which is usually an insult towards those who speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like, you can hit them with some of these cold, hard facts:

Which version of the term ‘snowflake’ are they using?

If they’re using it’s original meaning dated back in the 1800s (mostly used in Missouri), then they’re mixed up, as they would be calling you a racist; which is very much the opposite of what the modern day snowflake is known for. It was coined to describe those that hoped slavery would survive the country’s civil war.

If they’re using it’s 1970’s meaning, then they are insulting you for being white, or if you are a poc, then for 'acting' white. Or they’re calling you cocaine. Again, modern day bigots and incels who throw around the term snowflake are usually white themselves and they would most likely not be trying to insult themselves. Also, they’re probably not calling you cocaine.

If they’re using the modern terminology coined by Chuck Palahniuk (pronounced PUL-nak) in his book/movie, “Fight Club”, kindly remind them that Chuck Palahniuk is a gay man who was writing a satire targeted at hyper-masculinity and consumerism. (You could technically stop there, or you could continue…)

The phrase, “You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake” is not about someone who is weak or sensitive. It was originally a mantra Chuck used as a way to deprogram himself from seeing himself as another mass-produced “genius”. (You know, the way that bigots and incels see themselves.) It was also about rejecting the system that spits out lies of conformity to placate the general population so they stay in their mundane jobs. It was about breaking free of the mold.

- If you don’t want Fight Club spoilers, don’t read further, but I dive into reasons why those that use the insult are idiotic because the movie and the insult don't mean what they think it means.

However, the last paragraph, I think, is a pretty good way to sum up what they're actually saying when they call you a snowflake. -

This post really got away from me lol. It became longer than I wanted, but it was really fun to write.

——————

Fight Club, besides being satiracle, is a form of existentialism, and I would argue absurdism, towards gender roles and consumerism and how they intertwine under the patriarchy.

The Narrator, the protag, is lonely and suffering from debilitating insomnia. He seeks refuge from different support groups which give him comfort, though he does not belong in them. When a woman enters the picture, attending the same support groups which she also shouldn't be apart of, he is thrown off, upset, and quits going, which brings back his insomnia and lonliness.

That’s when he meets Tyler Durdon, a hyper-masculine version of himself that uses aggression and anger as a form of release, the titular fight clubs. Tyler Durdon himself is a satirical representation of the “alpha male”, and a rejection of any and all femininity. He is also a representation of the working class, livid at the classist system and his inability to become the master of his own life. Again, remember, Tyler is The Narrator.

Tyler creates Project Mayhem to destroy the financial institutions, wanting to give a fresh start to the masses. He created this paradox where he aims to destroy this patriarchal institution where he is out of control, by creating a patriarchal institution where he is in control and threatens to castrate anyone who question his authority. Castration has already been established in Fight Club as losing what makes you a man and reduces you to femininity.

How does this relate to gender roles?

- First let me point out that the birth of Fight Club came from an experience Chuck Palauhniuk had when he went to work sporting bruises from a previous altercation, and his coworkers refused to ask him what happened. This is a common theme among most men to refuse to delve into each other’s personal lives, which is seen as an ‘effeminate’ thing to do. -

There are barely any women in fight club but Marla Singer, the woman that intercepted the Narrator’s search for comfort. She is a strong character that exhibits autonomy over her own body (when she walks into traffic, not caring if she lives or dies) and her own free will to do the same things he is doing. To the narrator, she is competition. To Tyler, a caricature of the alpha-male, she is a sex toy. The Narrator’s rejection of women, particularly strong women, entering his world unless used as an object, is a commentary on the sort of utopia hypermasculine and incel men desire. He himself feels demasculinised (is this a word?) by her so his alter ego, Tyler, is his response.

Another good example, is the support group for those with testicular cancer. The Narrator describes Bob as having “bitch tits” which resulted from his castration. The whole group is a mockery of sensitivity among men because it proclaims that the only way a man can be sensitive is by having their balls removed.

There are so many small, minute details in this book/movie that poke fun at the typical hyper-masculine mindset that this was supposed to be a short “in your face” piece on how to combat the snowflake insult that it’s become a small essay on the subject.

Some examples of these small details:

The woman who wants to have sex before she dies is a clever response to the idea that disabled individuals are asexual because of their disibility.

The desire The Narrator has to destroy the face of the well-groomed man is another nod to the idea that masculinity doesn't make room for men to groom themselves or look 'pretty'. (Remember the whole 'metrosexual' thing from the early 2000's? Yeah.)

When Tyler forces all his 'space monkies' to endure the pain of the chemical burn on their hand, it's symbolic of the pain men endure to keep up these masculine appearances whether it causes them physical or mental anguish. It is also a physical mark given to them as a form of conformity, which is also when Tyler gives his snowflake speech, proving that they are not individuals anymore, but are under his patriarchal control.

The term “snowflake” is a jab to the bigots that use it, which is hysterical. What they’re saying is, “You’re not a unique snowflake, you are just like me, a drone of society that cannot think for themselves and has become a consumerist puppet used to feed the system that I admire which is also responsible for keeping me down. The fact that you reject your programming offends me because it forces me to face and question the societal rules, roles, and structures set in place, by man, that I have relied on my entire life. It forces me to face and question the patriarchy, which I currently worship and am a part of.”

[odinsblog]

Nothing screams fascism quite like encouraging students to rat out their teachers to the state

Last week, the state House joined the state Senate in passing a bill that encourages children and school employees to turn in teachers who mention "divisive concepts" in their classrooms.

As for what Tennessee lawmakers consider to be "divisive concepts," it's quite the hodgepodge, but it mostly boils down to mentioning racism or sexism in any way that might make a Tennessee Republican school or university student sad. WBIR gives a rundown of banned concepts, and the definition sandwiches no-brainer violations like teaching "that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex" with other, much weirder prohibitions like:

• That a person, by virtue of their race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex

• That a person should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress because of their race or sex

• That a meritocracy is inherently racist, sexist or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex

• That Tennessee or the U.S. is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist

• Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government

• Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class or class of people

• Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges or beliefs to a race or sex, or to a person because of their race or sex

• That the rule of law does not exist but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups

State universities can't use state funds to support organizations that promote "divisive concepts, and are now required to allow any guest speaker on campus regardless of "non-violent political ideology." That requirement is an obvious nod to far-right white nationalist, white supremacist, and antisemitic speakers who have been having a harder time booking gigs now that those events have become notorious for instigating on-campus and near-campus violence.

Rep. Justin Jones (D—Nashville) spoke about the bill when he returned to the House of Representatives after he was expelled and reinstated. He asked a series of questions, such as whether "college students are mature enough to talk about race and systemic racism, some of the concepts you want to prohibit being discussed at the college level?"

"I believe in God. All else is settled by facts and data," Ragan said.

Jones was quite blunt in his evaluation of the "racist" law, and not just in pointing out that the bill would seem to plainly ban discussions of systemic racism. "How will we be honest about our history if you're prohibiting any concepts about America's racist history? This sounds like fascism. This sounds like authoritarianism."

The Republican push to ban "divisive" discussions of American racism past and present, new Florida prohibitions against university professors giving expert testimony that contradicts the governor's views, and book bans that have expanded into threats to close public libraries entirely rather than tolerate court rulings that return "disputed" books to the shelves: Yes, it all sounds like fascism. Republicans have lost every cultural war they've joined and have decided that it's democracy that's the problem, not them.

(continue reading)

[stranger-rants]

Actually, to contextualize racism in the United States for Stranger Things fans, you all should read about the Newark Riots which happened in the late 60s.

My family is white. My parents are white. They grew up in New Jersey at this time, in an ethnically diverse neighborhood where the majority of their school classmates were black. Poverty rates were high, and whites with money had already fled those areas. The riots happened due to the extreme disenfranchisement of black people in the United States. Not wanting poor whites to organize and support black people protesting their conditions, white politicians intentionally sewed discord among poor white people and poor black people. So, it became an us vs. them situation. My parents did have friends outside of their race, but they also experienced a lot of violence that negatively impacted their perception of race. That’s something growing up that I had to grapple with and I had a lot to learn and unlearn, including understanding that prejudice against a white minority in this context is not the same thing as systemic racism.

This system made it easier for affluent whites to avoid criticism for their own racist actions, where their contribution to systemic racism was in the voting booth and in the pockets of racist politicians instead of on the streets. So, they could maintain their clean appearance while being responsible for the extreme disenfranchisement of black people. This is what racism in the north looked like, and in areas perceived as more progressive like California. This context is important to understand when you think individual characters are stand ins for systemic racism when it’s quiet clear, politically, that the existence of Hawkins and its white majority are a result of decades of white flight to that area, redlining in cities preventing black people from moving, and WASP conservatism. It’s no accident that the Sinclairs are one of the few black families in Hawkins.

I don’t think The Duffers intended to represent this. I think this is a result of white men who grew up in a largely white community, recreating the nostalgia of their childhood which was… a white fantasy. It’s why they say they wanted to deal with racism by bringing Billy onto the scene, and it’s easy to get upset at Billy pushing Lucas, even going to the extreme of arguing he was going to kill him (which he wasn’t), because it’s so visible, but Billy is one person and racism is systemic. At the same time, they’re seemingly unwilling to address or maybe just ignorant to the fact that Hawkins really is a racist town. The uncritical Reagan signs in the Wheeler’s front yard are 80s nostalgia decoration, not meant to call into question the kind of political environment the Wheeler children are being raised into - because they’re the heroes, they can’t be racist! That’s bad!

The problem with decontextualizing racism in Hawkins by making Billy the scapegoat for it becomes clearer in the last season when Billy is no longer around. Whether they intended to or not, they show how racist Hawkins actually is with how easily they form a lynch mob against children. While they shift their focus onto the D&D nerds (because they just have to victimize themselves through their stand in characters), Lucas and Erica become the primary target of that lynch mob in scenes that graphically evoke racist lynch mobs in American history. The narrative doesn’t address this in any way as evidence that Hawkins in racist, even going on to sanitize Hawkins in the wake of Eddie’s death by showing everyone coming together after a tragedy - a tragedy they contributed to. The end result is that many fans with no understanding of racism in America completely miss the racist undertones within the 80s nostalgia the Duffers created.

Long story short, we can talk about the racism of individual characters but it is a systemic issue and it is present in Hawkins. It’s never a good idea to decontextualize racism or any other systemic issue to blame it on individual “bad people” while promoting the white fantasy of the respectable suburb full of good white people who turned to violence because they just didn’t understand what was happening and those kids were “acting suspicious.” Nope. They’re racist, too. It’s just packaged nicer.

[sissa-arrows]

What one race are zionists trying to defend, if zionism is "racist" according to you?

First thing first you need to learn the definition of racism before trying to argue with people about it. Only racists pieces of shit will twist the definition of racism into defending one’s race instead of calling it what it is aka oppression. Defense implies that your action is justified. Actual racism is never justified and therefore it cannot be about oneself defending their race or any other race.

As for why Zionism is racism if I thought your question was genuine I would take the time to answer but the way you presented racism as “defending” anyone and the “according to you” show me that the question is not genuine. Almost 5 months into an escalation of violence and into an actual genocide against Palestinian if you still defend Israel and Zionism in any shape or form, it means you don’t see Palestinians as equal humans. And I’m not going to entertain you and lose time with you when you’re not looking for actual education.

If you were so confident in Zionism being right you wouldn’t be a piece of shit in anon you would do it under your actual account. But you wanna be able to pretend you didn’t support genocide when Israel finally pay for their actions so you get on anon.

From the bottom of my heart screw you.