#politically in/correct

[archtroop]

Kindly asking that you refrain from reblogging information about Roma, and what may constitute a slur against Roma, when you are not part of the community nor do you have the connections or understanding to know what constitutes a slur against Roma.

It's spreading misinformation, and it's honestly downright disrespectful.

Thanks.

Kindly asking ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD to stop reblogging about Jews if you are not one, as it is spreading misinformation and "it's honestly downright disrespectful".

Anon. That's absolutely USELESS of you.

If you find something I reblogged offensive or what have you - comment on it, reblog on it. Take a stand.

A passive aggressive anon ask is USELESS.

Are YOU Roma? Are you one of my followers/mutuals? I can never know. I can't trust you at all, I can't say if you are writing in good faith, or on behalf of a trend/common mis/conception, or if you are coming from a genuine place.

Anon, where are you from in the world? Would "Tsigani" be a slur to you or only against people in Moldova, Romania etc? Have you asked THEM if they see those terms as slurs?

Would "Soanii" be offensive? Because this is the term in Israel and other parts of the Middle East Roma are called (while "Gypsy" refers to probably Egypt, Soanii refers to Saana in Yemen or Tsoan - ancinet Egyptian city, or is a word that is reminiscent of an ancient word for "nomad".)

I will not stand for this culture of being offended by anything and everything just for the sake of it. Unless you all are ready to call all Jews "Bney / Bnot Israel" (sons and daughters of Israel). As it is not something that is plausible, Jews is OURS now. Jew derived from Yehuda, the second kingdom after the kingdom of Israel had split.

On the yellow stars in the 30-40s it was written: Jud.

In Russia and Ukraine etc we were Yevrey (which is ironically more correct on an ethnic level, and I have a suspicion as to why). If they were offensive on purpose they would use "zzid", a construct somewhere between Yid and the Russian word for "greedy" (Comunists hating on Capitalist logic. A variant of millenia old JewHate).

Now the world has it for the "Zionists". And hell if I ever let anyone take that from us and "slurify" it.

Anon, you do you, but if you want to have a discussion over terminology, asking "kindly" to not discuss it at all, is your SURE WAY to degrade those terms to oblivion and reinforce their prevalence.

I reblogged that post (and I have a good indication what post you may refer to, but again, anonask is a useless method of pointing at anything and in establishing a folloup, all I have left is guessing), because it brought up an interesting point.

A term becomes a slur if used as such or was constructed as such. If people utter the word "Jews" or "Gypsies" with disdain, they are slurring. Absolutely no question here. I am not naive.

Anon, are you talking on behalf of all the Roma in the world? All the ones who are referred to as Gypsy, Soanii, Tsiganii? I would never have the gull to stand here and represent all the Jewish community in the world and claim that "Jew" is a slur and we all are ONLY AND NOTHING BUT Bney / Bnot Israel.

I absolutely RESPECT that Roma refer to themselves as Roma. But you can not erase other terms from existence by getting offended, especially if those terms refer to places of origin. It's useless. By trying to cancel something out of existence, you only make it stronger. You either COMMENT directly on the use of those terms and present your opinion, and not on anon, because I can not have faith in anon (anons are for snitching and confessions). Or you achieve absolutely nothing.

Anon, who are you? Are you US Roma? Then maybe we can have a conversation.

And another piece of advice from someone who knows hate: two ways to battle offensive terminology/slurs.

Either re/claim them or downplay them/not react to them until they dissipate.

Your choice.

[odinsblog]

Give 👏 Amal 👏 Clooney 👏 her 👏 roses 👏

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

At your side [End of Season 2]

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[bunnyboy-juice]

NO MORE ASSOCIATING THINGS WITH FEMMES ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE PINK!HYPERFEM FEMMES ARE GREAT AND I LOVE YOU CAMPY FEMMES WHO EMBODY PINK BUT ALSO JESUS CHRIST CAN YOU GUYS NOT GO MORE THAN ONE DAY W/O TRYING TO SHOEHORN FEMMES INTO BEING ONLY PINK UWU BABIES. I AM FEMME AS IN GRASS AS IN DIRT AS IN TREE BARK AS IN WEEDS SPROUTING THROUGH THE SIDEWALK CEMENT. FEMME AS IN GENDER NONCONFORMITY AS IN FUCK YOU MY FEMININITY IS WHAT *I* SAY IT IS. FEMME AS IN DEPTH AND DARKNESS AND WARMTH AND TERROR. FEMME AS IN CAVES. FEMME AS IN LIGHTNING. FEMME AS IN AN AMALGAMATION OF TRAITS THAT I HAVE DECIDED ARE FEMININE REGARDLESS OF WHAT SOCIETY SAYS. FUCK IS IT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND?!???

[rednblacksalamander]

This would make a great six-hour YouTube video.

[ot3]

the interesting thing is that when you say things like 'the united states is beyond saving' people view that as a defeatist statement that is giving up on the hope of a better future, but frankly the thought of a significant number of people on the planet being willing and able to say that there is no place for colonial empires in their vision for the future is, to me, a much brighter and more hopeful political standpoint than the thought of being stuck in a perpetual cycle of choosing 'the lesser of two evils' as the overton window pushes further and further to the right with nothing but enthusiasm from our so-called progressive party.

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

Over the last few years, I’ve begun to heavily encourage people to think of a zoo or aquarium or sanctuary being accredited as conveying important information about their ethos / operations / politics - but not as an inherent indicator of quality. Why? Because accrediting groups can be and are fallible. There are issues with all of the accrediting groups and programs, to varying degrees, and so they’re just a piece of information for a discerning zoo-goer to incorporate into their overall opinion. I just saw a news article go by with some data that proves my point.

First off, good for Houston, no commentary that follows is directed that them.

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen a headline like this - there was one a couple years ago, about Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado also getting a perfect inspection. But here’s what bugs me about it.

If you see/hear the phrase “Facility X has been accredited by Y organization, which holds the highest standards in the world for this type of facility”, it kind of implies that facility X meets all of those standards, doesn’t it? Not most of them, not the majority. When you hear that a zoological facility has gone through a rigorous process to earn an accreditation branded (by the accrediting org) as “the gold standard” in the industry… the general public is going to interpret that as saying these facilities are in compliance with every single rule or standard. And what these headlines tell us, alongside the commentary from AZA in the articles, is that it’s not only not true - it never has been true. Most AZA accredited facilities apparently don’t meet all the AZA standards when they’re inspected, and that’s both okay with them and normal enough to talk about without worrying about the optics.

Let’s start with the basic information in the Houston Chronicle article, which will have been provided to them by the zoo and the AZA.

“Since it's inception in 1974, the AZA has conducted more than 2,700 inspections and awarded only eight perfect evaluations throughout the process's 50-year history. Houston Zoo's final report is 26 pages long — and filled with A's and A-pluses."

Okay, so… doing that math, less than one percent of AZA accreditation inspections don’t meet all the standards at the time of inspection. But, wait, that’s not just what that says. That bit of information isn’t talk about AZA accredited facilities vs the ones that got denied accreditation: this is telling us that of facilities that earned AZA accreditation, basically none of them meet all the standards at the time. This isn’t talking about tabled accreditations or provisional ones where they come back and check that something improved. Given that math from earlier, this information means that most - if not all - AZA accredited facilities have repeatedly failed to meet all of the standards at one point in time … and have still been accredited anyway.

That tracks with what was said about Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, back in 2021 when they got their perfect accreditation.

“Cheyenne Mountain Zoo has earned an incredibly rare clean report of inspection and its seventh consecutive five-year accreditation from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). In nearly 50 years of accreditations, CMZoo is only the fourth organization to earn a ‘clean’ report, which means there wasn’t a single major or minor concern reported”

Seven consecutive accreditation processes - and only one of them where they actually met all the standard at the time.

Here’s what the AZA CEO had to say about Houston’s accreditation achievement in that article, which reinforces my conclusion here:

"AZA president and CEO Dan Ashe says the multi-day inspection process, which occurs every five years, has been described as "comprehensive, exhausting and intimidating."

"We send a team of experts in who spend several days talking to employees, guests and the governing board. They look at animal care and husbandry. They look at the governance structure and finances. They look comprehensively at the organization," Ashe explains. "For a facility like Houston Zoo to have a completely clean accreditation and inspection is extremely rare. These inspectors are experts, it's hard to get to the point where they can't find something.""

Now, here’s the rub. We, as members of the public, will never have any idea which standards it is deemed okay for a given AZA facility to not meet. All of the zoological accrediting groups consider accreditation information proprietary - the only way we find out information about how a facility does during accreditation is if they choose to share it themselves.

On top of that, it’s complicated by the fact that last time I read them AZA had over 212 pages of accreditation standards and related guidance that facilities had to comply with. Now, AZA doesn’t accredit facilities if there are major deviations from their standards, or if there’s an issue on something important or highly contentious. So - based on my completely outsider but heavily researched perspective - this probably means that most zoos are in non-compliance with a couple of standards, but not more than a handful.

To make trying to figure this out even more fun, it is also important to know that AZA’s standards are performance standards: whether or not they’re “met” is based on a subjective assessment performed by the accreditation inspectors and the accreditation committee. This means that what qualifies as fulfilling the standards can and does vary between facilities, depending on who inspected them and the composition of the committee at the time.

So why do I care so much? Because when it comes to public trust, branding matters. AZA has gained a reputation as the most stringent accrediting group in the country - to the point that it can lobby legislators to write exceptions into state and federal laws just for its members - based on how they message about their accreditation program. How intensive it is, how much oversight it provides, what a high level of rigor the facilities are held to. That… doesn’t track with “well, actually, the vast majority of the zoos meet most of the standards most of the time.” People who support AZA - people who visit AZA accredited zoos specifically because of what it means about the quality of the facility - believe that accreditation means all the standards are being met!

To be clear: most AZA zoos do meet some pretty high standards. It’s likely that what are being let slide are pretty minor things. I expect it’s on stuff the facility can improve without too much hassle, and it might be that doing so is probably part of what’s required. There’s not enough information available to people outside the fold. But I will say, I don’t think any zoo is getting accredited despite AZA having knowledge of a serious problem.

Where I take issue with this whole situations is the ethics of the marketing and branding. AZA frames themselves as being the best-of-the-best, the gold standard, when it turns out that most of their accredited zoos aren’t totally in compliance, and they know and it’s fine. They seem to be approaching accreditation like a grade, where anything over a certain amount of compliance is acceptable. The public, though, is being fed a narrative that implies it’s a 99/100 pass/fail type of situation. That’s not super honest, imho, which shows up in how there’s zero transparency with the public about it - it goes unspoken and unacknowledged, except when it’s used for promotional gain.

And then, like, on top of the honesty in marketing part, it’s just… something that gets joked about, which really rubs me the wrong way. Like this statement from the media releases for the Cheyenne Mountain accreditation:

“Another of our ‘We Believe’ statements is, ‘We value laughter as good medicine,’” said Chastain. “To put this clean accreditation into perspective, when I asked Dan Ashe, AZA president and CEO, for his comments about how rare this is, he joked, ‘A completely clean inspection report is so unusual, and so unlikely, it brings one word to mind — bribery!’“

So, TL;DR, even AZA accreditation is designed so that their accredited zoos don’t have to - and mostly don’t - actually fully meet all the standards. I’d love to know more about what types of standards AZA is willing to let slide when they accredit a facility, but given the proprietary nature of that information, it’s pretty unlikely there will ever be more information available. AZA accreditation tells you what standards a zoo aspires to meet, what their approximate ethics are, and what political pool they play in. When it comes to the quality of a facility and their animal care, though, sporting an accreditation acronym is just a piece of the larger puzzle.

[psychotrenny]

I think one of the most blatant ways that "Femboy" is just the Politically Correct evolution of "Trap" is the way that so many of it's signifiers (i.e. thigh highs, cat ears) steal specifically from reddit transfem culture. It's just that these things are now framed as being for the sexual gratification of an other rather than the gender affirmation of the self

[beanghostprincess]

A bit tired of people complaining about Sanji's principle of "not hitting women" being misogynistic when it has been clearly stated multiple times that he does not choose it and it's heavily tied to his trauma and admiration for his dad and respect for women and definitely not from seeing women as somehow weaker than him

[cats2019forthenintendoswitch]

Karl Marx: Look, I'm not saying Rarijack isn't cute, just that given their respective class positions, their material interests will at some point come at odds with their relationship.

毛泽东(Mao Zedong): I think you may be too focused on aesthetics. While Rarity sells the illusion of luxury and Applejack presents herself as a people's laborer, both are ultimately defined by the small businesses they own. Petit-burgeouse, I believe, is the term?

江青(Jiang Qing):

[culturevulturette]

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” ― Theodore Dalrymple

[avalonishere]

Fermate questo schifo di mondo

[bowtiepastabitch]

Heaven's Not Homophobic in Good Omens, and Why That's Important

I need to preface this with, I am not trying to start a fight or argument and won't tolerate any homophobic or bad faith arguments in response to this. Cool? Cool.

This is in large part inspired by this ask from Neil's blog, which sparked some discourse that I don't want to get involved in but that brought up some analytic questions for me.

He goes on to reblog a question asking about Uriel's taunt specifically, clarifying that "boyfriend in the dark glasses" can just as easily be read/translated from angelic as girlfriend or bosom buddy. The idea is that an angel and a demon "fraternizing" is seriously looked down upon, not that heaven is homophobic. And that's super important.

We see homophobia in both the book and show, of course. Aziraphale is very queer-coded, intentionally and explicitly so, and we see the reaction of other humans to that several times. Sergeant Shadwell, for example, and the kid in the book that calls him the f-slur when he's doing magic at Warlock's birthday party. These are, however, individual human reactions to his coding as a gay man.

I am, personally, not a fan of heaven redemption theories for the show; no hate for people who want that it's just not something I'm interested in. I don't believe that heaven is good with bad leadership, or that God Herself remains as a paragon of virtue. To me, that's not in line with the themes and messages of the show. It's important, however, that heaven doesn't reflect human vices. Heaven can be nasty and selfish and apathetic in its own right without ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or racism. This matters for two reasons.

Firstly, we don't need the -isms and -phobias to be evil or at least ethically impure. In a world where we spend so much time fighting against prejudice and bigotry, our impulse is to see that reflected in characters whose motivations we distrust or who we're intended to dislike. While it's true that that's often the big bad evil in our daily lives, it can really cheapen the malice in fictional evil from a storytelling standpoint. A villain motivated by racism or as an allegory for homophobia can be incredibly compelling, but not every bad guy can be the physical representation of an -ism. Art reflects the reality in which it's crafted, but the complexity of human nature and the evil it's capable of can't be simplified to a dni list.

Secondly, and I think more importantly, is that for Good Omens specifically, this places the responsibility for homophobia on humanity. If you're in this fandom, there's like a 98% chance you've been hurt by religion in some way. For a lot of us, that includes religious homophobia and hate, so it makes sense to want to project that onto the 'religious' structure of Good Omens. It's a story that is, in many ways, about religious trauma and abuse. However, if heaven itself held homophobic values, it would canonize in-universe the idea that heaven and religion itself are responsible for all humanity's -isms and -phobias and absolve humans of any responsibility. Much like Crowley emphasizes repeatedly that the wicked cruelty he takes responsibility for is entirely human-made, we have to accept that heaven can't take the blame for this. To make heaven, the religious authority, homophobic would simply justify religious bigotry from humans. By taking the blame for religious extremism and hatred away from heaven and the religious structure, Good Omens makes it clear that the nastiness of humanity is uniquely and specially human and forces the individual to take responsibility rather than the system. Hell isn't responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, which by the way was religiously motivated if you didn't know, and heaven isn't responsible for Ronald Reagan.

This idea is perhaps more strongly and explicitly expressed in the Good Omens novel, in the scene where Aziraphale briefly possesses a televangelist on live TV. It's comedic, yes, but also serves to demonstrate that human concepts of the apocalypse and religious fervor are deeply incorrect (in gomens universe canon) and condemn exploitation of faith practices. Pratchett and Gaiman weave a great deal of complexity into the way religion and religious values are portrayed in the book, especially in the emphasis on heaven and hell being essentially the same. They're interested in the concept of what it means to be uniquely and unabashedly human, the good and the bad, and part of that is forcing each individual person to bear the brunt of responsibility for their own actions rather than passing it off onto a greater religious authority.

Additionally, from a fan perspective, there's something refreshing about a very queer story where homophobia isn't the primary (or even a side) conflict. The primary narrative of Good Omens isn't that these two man-shaped-beings are gay, it's that they're an angel and a demon. The tension in their romantic arc arises entirely from the larger conflict of heaven and hell, and things like gender and sexuality don't really matter at all. Yes, homophobia and transphobia are very real, present issues in our everyday lives, but they don't have to be central to every story we tell. There's something really soothing about Crowley and Aziraphale being so queer-coded and so clearly enamored with each other without constantly being bombarded with homophobia and hate. It's incredible to see a disabled angel whose use of a mobility aid makes no difference in their role and to see angels and demons using they/them pronouns without being questioned or misgendered. It's all accepted and normalized, and that's the kind of representation that we as queer people deserve.

[fuckyeahisawthat]

Paul/Chani battle couple falling in love while fighting side by side in a guerrilla war for national liberation felt like a gift to me personally for many reasons but mostly because comrades-to-lovers is SUCH a specific vibe and putting Paul Atreides into that dynamic is so so so so funny

[novelconcepts]

I live in a neighborhood I generally regard as safe for queer people. I live in a city pretty well known for being progressive, liberal, open to minorities. I live in a place I actively chose because it felt safe for me, my wife, my queer siblings, my friends of color. A place where there are endless Love is Love placards, pro-science measures, pro-Gaza notices in public windows. A place I love dearly for all of these reasons.

There are still Trump signs here. There are still proud bigots, loudly announcing they’re going to vote for that piece of shit. Here. In my safe neighborhood, in my liberal city. Here, where I can’t not see them. Here, they are still trying like hell to take away democracy. My liberties. My safety. Everything I hold dear, every reason I moved here in the first place.

The polls don’t matter. The registration numbers only count if the registered actually come out when push comes to shove. Do not rest on your fucking “oh, it couldn’t happen again” laurels, do not get complacent. Do not let your guard down. Vote. It is more critical than ever.

[tanadrin]

What response would you recommend to people attacking shipping? For that matter, what response would you recommend to Hamas doing that thing they did last October, which everyone has decided didn't happen and wouldn't matter if it did? I don't think the current response is good, but the alternative being offered is literally "roll over and die."

We are so far past a reasonable response to what Hamas did in October that “well what would you have done?” feels like a question that’s in extraordinarily bad faith, whether or not you mean it that way. A policy genuinely aimed at preventing massacres like the one in October starts with not illegally occupying territory, stalling a peace process indefinitely, and persistently dehumanizing and abusing a large civilian population—by the time we’re asking “how do you respond to a group like Hamas attacking civilians” we are already in the realm of abject policy failures, because a group like Hamas only exists because of Israeli policies. An honest response would be something like “fundamentally reassess our approach to Palestine.”

But if Israel has the kind of politics, and Netanyahu was the kind of leader, capable of doing that, it’s hard to imagine things getting this bad in the first place. This is one reason it’s important to put pressure on governments like the UK and US to criticize Israel’s actions, because the push for restraint is not going to come from within Israeli politics.