#it's about EQUALITY!!! not assimilation!

[thormanick]

Crazy thought,

are humans with visions supposed to be “batteries” for gods/divine thrones/whoever issues the actual vision?

/lots of thoughts in the tags/

[lex-cursus]

Things I don't write about enough: Yoshika's relationship with the moon.

[felixfathom]

god ppl r so lucky i never made my felix fathom / pupa comparison posts. do you guys know how many thoughts i had about a manga that was so ass.

[theabstruseanon]

.

[hummingbird-hunter]

The thing is, I have nothing against socialism or communism as a political ideology; trust me, I'm as anti-capitalist as they come. The leftism is really not the problem here.

The problem is when in their leftism, people – Americans, really, and western Europeans – use the ussr as this sort of goal, this complete antithesis to the modern capitalist society, this almost-utopian place to live. They use hammer and sickle symbol, the ussr anthem; sometimes, as a joke, sometimes, not so much.

Not only that clearly shows that they know absolutely nothing about the ussr – it's also spreading russian propaganda, whether it's on purpose or not, which is especially insidious now, when russia is literally committing a genocide.

The ussr wasn't a socialist utopia where everyone is equal. It was a totalitarian dictatorship, responsible for colonisation and genocide of multiple people and cultures. Just like the russian Empire before it. Just like modern russia continues to do now.

For many Eastern European and Central Asian people, hammer and sickle is not just a symbol of a political ideology. It's the symbol, under which people were starved to death, imprisoned or executed for daring to write in their own language; in which cultures were erased, people – forcefully assimilated, stripped of their own national identity.

It's the propaganda of being "the same people, the same nation" that russians love to use; that westerners love to believe, for the sole reason of the oppressed daring to look similar to the oppressor; for the sole reason of Americans being unable to look past their own history and realize oppression comes in many shapes and forms.

By using the ussr symbols in your political movement, you're denying the atrocities commited under that symbol and spreading russian propaganda, whether it's on purpose or not.

It's not "progressive" to wave around a hate symbol.

Do your research.

[tikkunolamresistance]

Zionism has taught Jews that we are ontologically different from the rest of humanity and collective community. Instilled within us that our only claim to safety, the only true way we can be undoubtedly safe, was through the existence of a quasi-Religious, ethno-nationalist state strictly dictated by the Zionist project. That the self-determination of Jews can only, exclusively, be achieved through the establishment of this colony of forced-assimilation. The equation of Zionism equals Judaism, no matter the disastrous consequences of which, has raised millions of Jewish people around the world.

And trust, it has not only been by the hands of Jewish Zionism. For Christian Zionism plays a major, glaring role in this indoctrination. With there being more Christian Zionists than there are Jews in the world (with much of the Republican and Democratic parties being Christian Zionists) the ideology of The Rapture, second coming of Jesus, with establishment of Jerusalem as the World’s new Capital following; Jews and Palestinians are just canon-fodder; pawns to summon Jesus. We implore that you do further reading on this matter and it’s instrumental role in Zionist ideology.

And one can only wonder, one can only assume, that has this not since opened an irrefutable Pandora’s Box of a new kind of capitalist nationalism onto the global Jewish community? To appoint a group as above another is a complexity of supremacy that we’ve seen through history. If we look at Imperialist history, we see what ideology has forced its way through epochs to excuse brutal expansionist policy.

What’s worst, and what’s most enraging, is that Shoah has been weaponised not only from the Holocaust industry— the billions made from displaying Jewish generational trauma and the cinematic brutalisation of our people— to ensure the West can constantly remind us that their role in the war was for Jewish liberation, and certainly not due to fearing Nazi imperial domination as a threat to Western imperial interests… but to merit the Israeli States’ “right to self determination” and “self-defence” against inevitable Native Palestinian uprising.

Zionism is a right-wing, ethnonationalist idology that has been used to control and influence Jewish communities for decades, to justify imperialist expansion. It’s an insult, a disgrace, to Jewish history, identity and peoplehood.

Anti-Zionism is the radical rejection and desire to dismantle the very systems that harm not only us, Jews, but our brothers and sisters in this fight against capitalist regime. We seek unity, liberation, equity, justice. We seek love where there has been unprecedented hatred. We seek grace where there has been insolence. Anti-Zionism is integral in the fight for true global liberation.

There is pain upon the Holy Land, Palestine, and we must admit that we can do something about it.

[mylight-png]

A while ago I was listening to Dara Horn's podcast relating to her book, People Love Dead Jews. Within this podcast she discussed the fact that Holocaust museums tend to center stories that highlight ways in which Jews were just like anyone else, putting secular Jews on a pedestal of sorts.

The podcast went on to make the point that we shouldn't have to be like them to be liked. A Jew in a kippah is just as worthy of being accepted as a Jew in a baseball cap, and to position one, the more assimilated one, as "better" is antisemitic.

This made me think of how movies and shows portray Jews, and I realized a similar pattern of idealizing assimilation is deeply prevalent.

There are two main ways Jews are portrayed in movies/shows that I've noticed that are problematic. (For a narrower scope I'll be discussing American media as I am more familiar with that than most other countries.)

The first kind of Jewish representation is the token Jew. This is the character that the viewer wouldn't even have known is Jewish had the show not casually mentioned them celebrating Hanukkah in passing. This is the character who is entirely the same as any other character. An example of this would be in Ginny and Georgia, where a few side characters are revealed to be Jewish. This reveal occurred only for the purpose of making a Hanukkah episode, and immediately one of the characters says the beginning words to most of our prayers, adding "bitch" at the end. This sort of absolutely blatant disrespect towards the words many of us wouldn't even speak fully in casual conversation is meant to indicate that it's okay to poke fun at our religion. (By the way, it isn't okay. Don't disrespect our religion, thanks.) (And no the actress wasn't Jewish.)

Then there's Ben Gross from Never Have I Ever, a similarly extremely assimilated Jewish character. Instead of making fun of Judaism, however, the show plays into Jewish stereotypes. Ben's dad is a wealthy influential lawyer who works with Hollywood. Come on, there's three in a row there. Ben himself is frequently made fun of for being very short (to an extent not befitting the actor's actual stature), and some of his mannerisms could be described as effeminate. All of these traits play into anti-Jewish stereotypes. The protagonist even says she wishes Ben was killed by Nazis and other than a scolding this isn't made to be the big deal that it is.

These sorts of characters are meant to show how Jews are "just like you!" and pokes cruel fun at the few remaining things that do occasionally set them apart. Yes, secular Jews exist, but the way these shows make fun of their Jewish identities is where the issue arises.

The second problematic representation is meant to make goyim feel good about being goyim. This is specifically done through how Judaism is portrayed in these movies.

A major example of this is the show Unorthodox, in which the plot centers a young girl trying to escape her very observant community. This show directly demonized the Jewish religion, making it appear inherently oppressive and twisted.

While some may argue that the show was merely trying to portray the social issues within the community, there are better ways to achieve this.

The book An Unorthodox Match takes on a similar task with a vastly different tone. The book centers a protagonist joining an equally observant community, but not for a moment does the book, author, or protagonist blame Judaism. The book is very clearly written by a Jew who loves Judaism, and yet it manages to highlight similar social issues to the show without blaming Judaism. In fact, Jewish traditions have a fair share of appreciation in the book!

This sort of media is meant to make the goyishe viewers be grateful they aren't part of those communities, but as a Jewish viewer I felt deeply uncomfortable with the positioning of religious Jews as a negative part of society. This media makes the characters seem like they have nothing at all in common with the goyim around them or the goyim watching the show. It's the polar opposite of the previous example.

The first example is showing Jews as "just like anyone else" until they aren't, while the second example portrays Jews as entirely other. Never have I seen an Orthodox Jewish character side by side with the non-Jewish characters in any other context than the Jewish character envying their non-Jewish peers.

Why is the choice either to be assimilated or othered? Why can we not have an observant Jewish character remind their friends that they can't hang out on Saturday, or maybe they bring their own kosher snacks? Maybe a Jewish character muttering a bracha over their food? Why not make being Jewish an important part of their character without making them self-loathe because of it?

Media almost only ever shows two extremes and neither of those extremes has a positive impact on the perception of Jews.

(There is also a pattern I've noticed with Jews and goyim being cast in Jewish roles and how that corresponds to the character, but that's probably another post for another time.)

[jewish-sideblog]

I think it's very funny when people on tumblr tell me that "decolonisation is not a metaphor". Because, uh, yeah. I know that. My ancestors were colonised and stripped of our native lands, forced to assimilate and lose our culture, forced to convert and lose our religion. Every day I work to undo that damage. Every day I study Hebrew because my family could not do so safely under colonialism. Every day I pray to a G-d that my people could not safely worship under colonialism. Every day I study and embrace ancient Jewish ways of learning, thinking and being that were lost because of colonialism. I share this knowledge with my family, with my friends, and with my community. As an academic, I am actively involved in attempting to unmake the violent and continued coloniality of my people's homeland, hoping to undo the damage caused by Brits, Romans and Turks. I do that for the benefit of native peoples in the land-- all of them. Jews, Arabs, Druze, Samaritans and Bedu all deserve equality and peace. Decolonization isn't a metaphor to me. It's a constant way of life.

And what are you, non-indigenous American goy on tumblr, doing for your decolonization? Are you learning the Cherokee language? Sioux? Muscogee? Do you spend your spare time meeting with the indigenous tribes local to your area? Do you push your representatives to help those tribes have greater access to land, healthcare, and autonomy? Can you even list the names of the native peoples whose land you walk on without looking them up?

Or does your "decolonisation" look like an occasional land acknowledgement, reblogging lip-service posts about the plights of indigenous communities, and using your political views to justify attacking Jews on the internet? 'Cause patting yourself on the back for that sure looks like a metaphor to me.

[noxturnalpascal]

Devotion 🖤 Masterlist

Series Summary: When is it enough? When is it too much? When does Devotion become Obsession?

I. Stronger Together CH 1 CH 2 CH 3

II. Predator or Prey? CH 4 CH 5 CH 6 CH 7 CH 8

III. Path to the Future CH 9 CH 10 CH 11 coming soon

Series Warnings: 18+ MDNI, canon-typical violence/death, death of clickers, guns, blood/injury, references to previous SAs (not described), Reader has low self worth & trauma, this group/cult is not feminist - women aren’t treated as equals, Joel has sexual relationships with other characters (not described in detail), possessiveness, manipulation, stalking/spying on, Joel gets mean, DubCon Oral, Joel gets abusive (verbally, mentally, physically (he hits, throws, and bites), thoughts of self-harm and suicide, talk of periods & pregnancy, unprotected PiV, oral sex (m & f receiving), come eating, DIRTY TALK, brief reference to breeding kink and creampie kink (but reader does NOT get pregnant in this story).

A/N: OBVIOUSLY this is canon-divergent, but it is post-outbreak. The events of outbreak day have not changed (sorry Sarah). Reader does have a developed background that plays heavily in her character arc, so in that sense she is very much an OC. Reader has a nickname and some minor physical descriptions.

LAYOUT OF JOEL'S HOUSE

AO3 LINK

MOODBOARD BY @strang3lov3 MOODBOARD BY @beefrobeefcal

*🖤*NOTES ABOUT THE CULT & JOEL BELOW*🖤*

ABOUT THE CULT

The Cult's Core Ideology

Build up a community (and supplies) to return to a thriving society that can keep people safe & find a cure.

The Cult Operates by its 3 Tenants:

How Joel does it (what he "preaches")

I. Build Trust (We are Stronger Together)

Makes people feel beautiful, important, HEARD

Shares the wealth (food, shelter, women)

Seeks Power & Control to get others to help him

II. Us vs Them (The Predator Vs The Prey)

FEDRA is the enemy, do not trust them

Assimilate or Destroy all other people/groups

Attack them before they attack you

III. Gather & Prepare (Create a Path to the Future)

You can never have enough, always take take take take

The community you create now will determine future society (fair, honest, hardworking)

Once you are well-prepared and rebuild, you can work on finding a cure

🖤

Notes about Joel and the Cult:

He and Tess began this community together in 2010 after they met Bill and Frank and they felt that the QZ was becoming too dangerous and unstable. They settled in a small, remote town in the mountains of Vermont. Tess helps him "run" the community but she has a submissive role. (Their dynamic here is different from canon.) Tess has his respect probably more than anyone else does but she is not looked upon like an equal by anyone in the community.

Timeline/Ages:

This takes place in the fall of 2012, so It’s been 9 years since outbreak day. Joel is 45, my HC for Reader is Early 30's (Tess is 39/40). Reader's exact age isn't given, but she was in her early 20's on outbreak day and I wanted her to have experienced a fair taste of an adult life before the world ended. I didn't want to write the reader as inexperienced or with too large of an age-gap, although I think 11-14 years is still pretty significant. She has a history that plays a significant role in her personality (wary, untrusting). She has been hurt/abused by men - both those that took advantage of her when she was young, as well as by those that she trusted/loved. There are very few physical descriptions but she is very much an OC. Note that her age is not something that's explicitly mentioned because I did want to keep it inclusive. I hope everyone who wants to read this can use their imagination to fit themselves into the story in a meaningful way.🖤

[txttletale]

Could you say a bit more about your thoughts on zygon inversion?

the whole two-parter is about how refugees (the zygons) who are being settled by the british government, and how some of them are Good Refugees who just want to assimilate and be Normal Human (read: British) People and some of them are Bad Refugees who join a scary terrorist group that use this fucking banner:

it is, i think, completely impossible for anyone with even the slightest understanding of european political discourse to not immediately scan this as being, if not a 1-1 to metaphor exactly, about as damn close to being About Muslim Immigration as it gets, playing on the everpresent fear of the european white supremacist right that asylum seekers and refugees from west asia are all secretly suicide-bombers in waiting. and this episode takes the liberal stance on this, which is that yes, obviously some of them are insane violent evil militants who just want to kill people, but some of them are The Good Ones, and we should figure out a way to find and punish The Bad Ones without impactiung the Good Ones Too--this is, broadly, the liberal stance on immigration in the UK, and it is obviously also prima facie accepting of islamophobic ideas! jack graham did a great piece on it.

the doctor's little speech at the end of the zygon inversion essentially boils down to 'war is bad, you just want war because you're an arrogant idiot who won't be affected by it'. which would be all very well and good in an episode like the frontier in space, where the confrontation is between two competing imperialist powers full of bluster and bravado and jingoism--but in talking to UNIT and the zygons, he's textually equivocating between refugees who are unhappy with their mistreatment at the hands of the British government and the British government agency mistreating them (yes, i know UNIT is nominally plurinational but that is not the portrayal of them we are getting here.) the fundamental problem with the scene is that bonnie (as elizabeth sandifer has pointed out) is only there to say vacuous nonsense that basically amounts to "i love war and violecen and i think its good" so that the doctor can heroically say, "actually, itsNot good." she's written as such an embarrasing caricature for the doctor to knock over that it imo makes the whole speech profoundly unearned.

of course, peter capaldi sells it, like he often sells garbage he's given to say! it's even a moving speech against war, when taken out of context--but taken in context, it's just equivocating between the oppressed and their oppressors and treating them both as equally responsible for making peace, and i think that's morally repulsive.

[steveyockey]

As I watched people online debate the models of anti-colonial struggle, raising comparisons to Algeria and North America and South Africa, I found myself returning to the foundational Jewish liberation myth: the Exodus. It was hard not to think about the moment in the Passover seder when we lessen the wine in our full cups with our pinkies as we recite the plagues. This ritual has materialized as an indispensable touchstone, insisting that to hold onto our humanity we must grieve all violence, even against the oppressor.

But I also thought of the plagues themselves, particularly the final one, the slaying of the first born—children, adults, the elderly. It seems that hiding in our liberation myth is a recognition that violence will visit the oppressor society indiscriminately. I know that I have many friends, and that Currents has many readers, who are asking themselves how they can be part of a left that seems to treat Israeli deaths as a necessary, if not desirable, part of Palestinian liberation. But what Exodus reminds us is that the dehumanization that is required to oppress and occupy another people always dehumanizes the oppressor in turn. For people who feel like their pain is being devalued, it’s because it is; and that devaluation is itself a hallmark of the cycle of the diminishing value of human life. As the abolitionist geographer Ruth Wilson Gilmore has said, “Where life is precious, life is precious.” We are seeing the ways that Jews as the agents of apartheid will not be spared—even those of us who have devoted our lives to the work of ending it. (I am thinking of Hayim Katsman, zichrono l’vracha, killed by Hamas, an activist against the expulsion of the West Bank community of Masafer Yatta, and Vivian Silver, a hostage in Gaza, who is known to many of its residents as the person they meet at the Erez Crossing who advocates for and facilitates their transfers to Israeli hospitals for treatment.)

That question of how we recuperate this humanity is ultimately an organizing question. People have repeated over and over again over the last few days that you “cannot tell Palestinians how to resist.” To me, it seems there is a very literal dimension to this axiom: They are not asking. Part of what has made the experience of this event feel so different from the status quo—and so different to Palestinians and Jews—comes from the fact that Palestinians were undeniably the actors, for once, not the acted upon. The protagonists of the story. I consider it an enormous failure of our movements that we have not been able to build a vehicle for that kind of reversal in any other way thus far. Our Jewish movements for Palestine were not powerful enough to stop other Jews from gunning down Palestinians in peaceful marches at the Gazan border fence, or to keep Palestinians from being fired, harassed, and sued for speaking the truth about their experience or—God forbid—advocating the nonviolent tactic of boycott. And now, we do not have a shared struggle able to credibly respond to these massacres of Israelis and Palestinians. With all of the work that many Jews and Palestinians have done to reach toward each other over the years, I believe at heart it is this failure that is now driving us apart. There is no formidable political formation that I know of that can hold the political subjectivity of both Jews and Palestinians in this moment without simply attempting to assimilate one into the other. No place where Jews and Palestinians who agree on the basics of Palestinian liberation—right of return, equality, and reparations—are poised to turn the synthesis of these two subjectivities into a coherent strategy.

One of the most terrible things about this event is the sense of its inevitability. The violence of apartheid and colonialism begets more violence. Many people have struggled with the straightjacket of this inevitability, straining to articulate that its recognition does not mean its embrace. I am reminding myself that it was from Palestinians, many of them writing and speaking in these pages, that I learned to think of Palestine as a site of possibility—a place where the very idea of the nation-state, which has so harmed both peoples, could be remade or destroyed entirely. And it was Palestinians who opened my thinking to multiple visions of sharing the land. On the left, I hope we do not mistake the inevitability of the violence for an inescapable limit on our work or the quality of our thought. Even if our dreams for better have failed, they must accompany us through this moment to the other side. We need to imagine a movement for liberation better even than the Exodus—an exodus where neither people has to leave. Where people stay to pick up the pieces, rearranging themselves not just as Jews or Palestinians but as antifascists and workers and artists. I want what Puerto Rican Jewish poet and activist Aurora Levins Morales describes in her poem “Red Sea”:

We cannot cross until we carry each other,

all of us refugees, all of us prophets.

No more taking turns on history’s wheel,

trying to collect old debts no-one can pay.

The sea will not open that way.

This time that country

is what we promise each other,

our rage pressed cheek to cheek

until tears flood the space between,

until there are no enemies left,

because this time no one will be left to drown

and all of us must be chosen.

This time it’s all of us or none.

Arielle Angel, “‘We Cannot Cross Until We Carry Each Other’,” Jewish Currents, October 12, 2023.

[the-cat-and-the-birdie]

The Hobie Brown Punk Playbook - Anarchism & Hobie's Arc

A short series where I analyze the political, historical, musical, and romantic influences of Hobie Brown, and how it affects his arc, design, and character.

1) Anarchism 101 / 2) Punk 101 / 3) Hobie Characterization Guide (How to Write Hobie) /4) Punk & Hobie's Design / 5) Romance in the 70's

_______________________________________________

Why Hobie's Arc is the perfect metaphor for Anarchy and Anti-Establishment:

What is Anarchism? What's an anarchist, and what makes Hobie one?

In most places, Anarchism is defined as:

a political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

Which means that, as an Anarchist, Hobie believes that all forms of authority that involves a hierarchal power should be abolished and destroyed.

Anarchists opposes any and all power structures in which a single person, class, or entity rules over a body of people.

Anarchism is a thought system that, at it's core, is anti-government, anti-monarchy and anti-cop. It's goal is to protect and highlight the importance of equality and community but also freedom and individuality as well.

Although many people assume anarchy is about chaos - and denying any and all structures - if anything, it’s actually the opposite.

Anarchy is about balance -

When we look at the definition of Anarchy, we can see two complimentary ideas. ______

The first is the 'advocating the abolition of hierarchical government' - which is the sentiment Anarchy is most known for. It's the opposition of power structures in which one class or group rules or gains privilege over another - cops and civilians, the government and citizens, Spider-people and the multiverse, Miguel and the Spider-people...etc.

For the purposes of this post, I'll call it the First Pillar of Anarchism, and it's the basis for one of Anarchism's foundational beliefs: direct action.

(Which Hobie is the king of)

The second idea is one often overlooked, but just as important, and I'll talk about how much it colors Hobie's characterization in a second.

The organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis. Anarchists believe in equality, and the power of the collective and working together as a unanimous unit.

But they also believe in freedom of choice, and the choice to be independent.

When working in large cooperative groups, there is the risk of a shared identity that may stifle or assimilate it's members. Just as much as Anarchists believe in unity and equality, they also believe that a society - or any group - should be voluntary. And that sticking out from the pack is okay and even encouraged.

They believe people reserve the right to not participate at all, and that it is their right to differ and challenge the pack, if they so want to.

In the perfect anarchist world and situation (in my opinion,) - No one rules over the collective, and the collective rules over no one.

When you put those two together you get Anarchy. A balance of community and self.

And although we don't live in an anarchist utopia, Anarchists are people who live life fighting for the equality and unity of others, as well as their independence and freedom to be who they are outside of others.

In short, An Anarchist is someone who believes in equality, community, freethinking, and most of all freedom of choice.

Starting to sound like anyone we know?

What makes Hobie the perfect Anarchist?

Hobie is Anarchy personified. Literally.

Hear me out.

When we look at the definition of Anarchism next to Hobie's actions, behavior, and beliefs - we can see the writers created Hobie and his arc to be anarchy in it's purest form.

Anarchy is described as:

a political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

Hobie only has roughly ten minutes of screentime, and I wrote (here) exactly how the writers squeeze meaning into (quite literally) every-line he has.

In every line and frame the writers are intent on having Hobie move towards the 2 specific goals and motives on Anarchism, backed by his punk and anarchist morals.

Firstly, he approaches Miles to advocate the abolition of Miguel's hierarchical society, emotionally and mentally encouraging Miles to oppose his authority. All of Hobie's speaking lines are dedicated to this purpose - becoming an ally to Miles (and other Spider-people) and inspiring rebellion.

This is reflected by his opposition to the ideas of anomalies, and Miguel's rule.

I just wanna highlight, that when Hobie meets Miles - neither he nor Miles are aware that Miles intends to avoid his canon event.

At the point of their meeting, Hobie only knows that Miles has disrupted Pavitr's canon event, and that Miles himself in an anomaly.

Hobie opposes Miguel's hierachial society, his rule over the timeline and multiverse, and his use of force and threats of violence. By advocating for the abolition of Miguel's society and urging Miles' rebellion against Miguel, Hobie is directly engaging in the first pillar of Anarchism.

When Hobie's efforts pay off and Miles escapes Society capture, he's goal changes toward the second pillar.

Hobie recognizes Spider-Society does not operate on a voluntary, cooperative basis - as their canon events are mandatory by force and compulsion. And because of this, he thinks ahead and uses his self-made watches in order for him, Gwen, and Miles to exercise their right of choice. From the moment he quits, all of Hobie's behavior is dedicated to this purpose - getting Miles and Gwen out of the society, and helping Miles avoid his incoming canon event.

The Spider-Society is everything Anarchy stands against.

Anarchy stresses volunteered and cooperative effort for a reason.

I spoke earlier about how in cooperative groups, their is a risk of a shared identity within a group that forces assimilation and cooperation.

And Spider-Society is the perfect, and most literal example of this.

Spider-people are (literally) the 'same person'. Those in the Society are united by the shared identity of being Spider-people. This identity is mandatory for entry - and because Miguel ties canon events to the identity of a Spider-person, the canon events become compulsory and mandatory as well.

I mentioned before that at the time of meeting Miles, both he and Miles had no idea about Mile's incoming canon event. He, like Miles, only learns this when Miles announces that his dad is about to be captain - in front of Miguel.

When Miles escapes and Hobie quits, from that point on - despite the fact he's not fully shown on screen again - Hobie still manages to act on and stand by Anarchism. From then on, every single one of his actions is dedicated to opposing the involuntary, compulsory nature of canon and canon events.

Hobie interferes with the compulsive nature of canon by approaching Gwen's dad and speaking with him. He interferes with the involuntary nature of the Society's membership, by leaving Gwen the watch that allows her and Peter B. to leave, going AWOL.

___________________________________________________

As a character, Hobie is what is considered a insurgent. His purpose in the story and Miles' life is to inspire action and rebellion within him and the system.

And at his core, Hobie is meant to be a character that's meant to empower others - especially at their lowest point. That's what Anarchism, and Punk, is about.

Hobie is Anarchy personified.

Every one of his motives and lines are dedicated to it's purpose. Whether it's his first scene disarming Miles with humor and allyship, or him deliberately copying Society technology.

With every word and frame, Hobie inspires rebellion - defying hierarchy, and empowering choice.

With the people closest to them, he literally put the power of choice in their hands, whether it be Miles' palms, or the watch Gwen held.

In the battle against the Spider-Society - an organization of hierarchy, control, compulsion, and force - the writers chose to have Hobie's weapon of choice be Anarchy.

And it's really clear they see Anarchy for what it is - a system and tool of empowerment, compassion, and freedom.

And honestly, I can't think of any other words that can describe Hobie better (or than hot).

Hobie Brown is literally walking Anarchy idc idc you can't tell me different bye.

Find Part 2 - Punk 101 here!

__________

also have a couple more ideas and drafts of these, mainly examining: Punk and what makes Hobie punk, his design inspiration and fashion, the 70s history behind him, romance in the 70s, etc so uh yeah

[decolonize-the-left]

Show Me You're Indigenous

No wait let me explain.

Seeing global indigenous solidarity right now and I wanted to say I think y'all should be looking into the history of the land youre on, looking into the support your local tribes need, learning about the native plants and foods and animals around you.

If you do not want to be defined by consumerism, hyperindependence, or white supremacy you must start to build a future for yourselves outside of it.

And what does that look like if not becoming indigenous to the place you live?

Making sure that the land pilgrims and colonizers handed to you isnt something that you exploit, but actively participate in taking care of. Making sure that you don't see the indigenous people or the land as beneath you, but as equals if not teachers.

Because this is your home now too. Isn't it?

And rather than villifying the people who were here first for having a birthright claim that you dont and forcing us to assimilate to capitalism... learn about the land you inherited.

How it works, what and who takes care of it and how it takes care of you. How you can return the favor.

Show us you are not your ancestors. That the change we see online and in support of Palestine is not shallow or just a trend.

By showing through action that not only do you believe all humans are equal but that you are willing to engage and actively help dismantle the systems hurting all of us.

That you're no longer just a settler on occupied land taking advantage of the way the land and it's people are exploited.

Show us that you no longer feel like a colonized person who wants to uphold white supremacy and it's ideals. That you no longer want those privileges or any comforts bought with innocent blood overseas. That you don't want to perpetuate the systems destroying the planet and it's people.

Your people.

Show me that you know you belong on Turtle Island. Show me how you respect your home and land.

Show me that you are not "white" because you know that race was created Solely to create separation and false superiority.

Show me how you've defined yourself outside of it.

Show Me That You Are Indigenous

[naivety]

So long as the political and economic system remains intact, voter enfranchisement, though perhaps resisted by overt white supremacists, is still welcomed so long as nothing about the overall political arrangement fundamentally changes. The facade of political equality can occur under violent occupation, but liberation cannot be found in the occupier’s ballot box. In the context of settler colonialism voting is the “civic duty” of maintaining our own oppression. It is intrinsically bound to a strategy of extinguishing our cultural identities and autonomy.

[...]

Since we cannot expect those selected to rule in this system to make decisions that benefit our lands and peoples, we have to do it ourselves. Direct action, or the unmediated expression of individual or collective desire, has always been the most effective means by which we change the conditions of our communities. What do we get out of voting that we cannot directly provide for ourselves and our people? What ways can we organize and make decisions that are in harmony with our diverse lifeways? What ways can the immense amount of material resources and energy focused on persuading people to vote be redirected into services and support that we actually need? What ways can we direct our energy, individually and collectively, into efforts that have immediate impact in our lives and the lives of those around us? This is not only a moral but a practical position and so we embrace our contradictions. We’re not rallying for a perfect prescription for “decolonization” or a multitude of Indigenous Nationalisms, but for a great undoing of the settler colonial project that comprises the United States of America so that we may restore healthy and just relations with Mother Earth and all her beings. Our tendency is towards autonomous anti-colonial struggles that intervene and attack the critical infrastructure that the U.S. and its institutions rest on. Interestingly enough, these are the areas of our homelands under greatest threat by resource colonialism. This is where the system is most prone to rupture, it’s the fragility of colonial power. Our enemies are only as powerful as the infrastructure that sustains them. The brutal result of forced assimilation is that we know our enemies better than they know themselves. What strategies and actions can we devise to make it impossible for this system to govern on stolen land? We aren’t advocating for a state-based solution, redwashed European politic, or some other colonial fantasy of “utopia.” In our rejection of the abstraction of settler colonialism, we don’t aim to seize colonial state power but to abolish it. We seek nothing but total liberation.

Voting Is Not Harm Reduction - An Indigenous Perspective

[ineffable-endearments]

Crowley and Aziraphale both have equally severe trauma, but it's different for each. That has to be taken into account when comparing their reactions to their former Sides. There are meaningful points of comparison, but the interesting part is in how they've adapted to survive their abuse, not who is "better adjusted." The things that they've learned to help them survive have kept them alive and hurt them in equal measure.

Also, although I'm a strong believer that each character has...well, a Nature, things about them that are hardwired in, I think their responses to their Sides are the products of Nurture (or, well, lack thereof, the poor dears) more than anything.

It didn't take Crowley long to grow away from Hell because Hell doesn't encourage connection. It encourages the opposite. Demons aren't even supposed to trust each other! They're just supposed to be afraid of each other! And honestly, that's where evil will sow the seeds of its own destruction: Hell treated Crowley so poorly that he decided he wanted to go off and be part of something else instead, and I think his work will ultimately lead to Hell's downfall, because I truly doubt Crowley is the only demon who feels that way.

It HAS been hard for Aziraphale to grow away from Heaven because Heaven doesn't just encourage connection - it coerces total assimilation by promising that with Heaven, you can be Good. However, this, too, is where I think evil will sow the seeds of its own destruction: if you make people desperate for belonging and desperate to feel like they are Good, they might join up with someone who's more accepting of them, someone with whom they can belong more naturally, someone who makes it easier to do good. I find it likely there are many angels like Aziraphale and Muriel, who want affection and are earnestly trying to be good for real.

[communistkenobi]

I think a large problem with how we got to this stage of "man is gender neutral" discourse is that a lot of queer people refuse to engage with feminism. I've been seeing it brought up a lot recently, but it's true. Someone who doesn't see a problem with referring to a trans woman as "dude" probably also doesn't believe in patriarchy to begin with. We need to start doing feminism 101 on tumblr again.

I think this is true and I also think this issue extends to the fact that white liberal queerness is the societally accepted conception of lgbtq issues broadly - the fact that pride flags litter the windowsills of small businesses and banks, that lgbtq merchandise is its own market, that western conceptions of gayness and especially transness are the internationally imposed norm (eg, we are pathological exceptions to cishetero society and should be accepted on the grounds that we are scientifically proven to be legitimate by medical and psychiatric institutions, presented with an awkward flair of “okay so we’re not saying being transgender is a mental illness, but it is caused by a mental illness” + framing of gay people as “they’re just like straight people! they can get married and have children just like you!”). Many many queer people of colour have pointed out how much this predominate western framing of lgbtq identity as a “white person thing” (partially because white queer people are just as racist as non-queer white people, also because of aforementioned western imperialism) puts them at odds with their own communities, giving people in those communities a “rational” reason to oppose lgbtq rights on the grounds of resisting western imperialism. Israel’s pinkwashing is a particularly instructive and stark example of this, positioning lgbtq freedom as being contingent on genociding and destroying Palestine - this doesn’t mean it’s okay to be homophobic obviously, but this sort of imperial imposition of queerness as part of the package of western domination creates the conditions for “rationally opposing” lgbtq rights and equality within colonized communities and ultimately causes intersecting levels of harm for lgbtq people in those communities. You can read decolonizing trans/gender 101 by b binaohan if you want more on the subject, I’ve only read the intro so far but it was very instructive (thank you @/molsno for spreading this link around! - she also has a post with a bunch of transfeminist writings if you want more of that). There's also this video by FD Signifier about Dave Chappelle's transphobia that talks about anti-Blackness in white trans/queer spaces and the intense homophobia and transphobia Black lgbtq people face as a result of this that I found insightful if you want to listen to something instead

ANYWAY, all to say - I think the larger problem is that queerness in western contexts (which tumblr is firmly situated in) is overwhelmingly white and liberal, which means that even if these spaces were to incorporate feminist frameworks in their analysis of oppression, they would be incorporated as liberal feminist frameworks, which are fundamentally transmisogynistic and racist, and fundamentally attached to the imperial project of the west (I recently read this article called Beyond the Coloniality of Gender by Alex Adamson discussing some of the problems with western feminism. they demonstrate this through a case study on western feminist objections to genital cutting in certain African countries + analysis of decolonial trans and intersex feminisms more broadly - if you click "show document" in the upper right hand corner of the page I linked it allows you to access the full article).

I’ve always struggled to articulate the exact issue we're discussing, because at a certain point a lack of knowledge is not to be blamed -the larger issue at hand is that the western political + economic apparatus has incorporated queer assimilation into its project. This does not mean that queer people in the west are safe from homophobia or transphobia (see: current transphobic hysteria across North America and UK in particular), but it does mean that white western queer people have incredible political and rhetorical leverage to dominate these conversations using white liberal analytical frameworks, which can only lead to transmisogynist and white supremacist conclusions about the nature of oppression. I think the only way out of these path-dependent "everyone is oppressed by patriarchy" conversations is a larger decolonial political and social project - part of which necessarily incorporates feminist analysis, but feminist analyses that are decolonial, marxist, and transfeminist in nature, and the only way these frameworks can be comprehensively adopted is through a larger decolonial turn