#punching up

[sjbattleangel]

JK R*wling has just touched your favourite series, what would she name your favourite characters?

(Feel free to write in the notes or a reblog...if you can that is. *gulp*)

[self-chiller]

Why is it that bullied people, whether neurodivergent or not, like, aren't allowed to punch up anymore. We punch up and suddenly it's a "superiority complex"

Oh, that's right, it's because ableism is non-partisan

[labelleizzy]

Migrants. Trans people. Trading partners. Law firms. The media. Academia. Trump has attacked all of these and spread fear and uncertainty quite literally across the world.

With so much vying for the headlines these days, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed by his assaults. But there’s a common denominator at work that can help us cut through the noise.

We already know that every accusation by Trump is a confession. That’s why he yammers on about the MS-13 gang in El Salvador. Kilmar Abrego García, now deported to a prison in that country due to “administrative error,” originally fled that country precisely because gangs were exploiting a lawless situation to extort his family’s business there. They threatened to harm or kill Abrego García if his family didn’t pay up.

And when you think about it, that’s exactly what Trump is doing here in the U.S. Whether it’s imposing punishing tariffs, stripping security clearances, or withholding billions in federal funds, Trump is extorting his way through his second term. Only here, it’s big countries, big firms and big schools. He’s saying “Pay up or else.” Classic mob boss behavior.

Once we frame Trump as a common thug, many things crystallize and lock into place. This is important not only to predict what he will do but also to demonstrate how we should respond.

It’s helpful to ascend to 30,000 feet, above all the stormy weather, to get a clearer picture of what’s actually happening. So come aboard Fight Back airlines today and get the lay of Trumpland below.

**Punching down

Every playground bully looks around to determine who are the weakest and most vulnerable. In the U.S. that would be migrants and trans people. Both groups are now on the “outs” with voters, in large measure due to hateful and false propaganda put out by the Trump campaign itself.

The targeting of these groups serves at least three key purposes.

First, it demonstrates Trump’s willingness to deploy his power against actual people, stripping them of their rights and dehumanizing them in the eyes of the public.

Second, and relatedly, it conditions the public. Supporters of Trump feed off the hate and cruelty, while others who might oppose him grow fearful and silent, hoping that if they just keep their heads down and say nothing, the Trump storm will pass over them.

Third, the people he targets become scapegoats and a distraction whenever anything else is going badly. Sky high prices from the tariffs? Look at this migrant killer! Social security checks not arriving? Run another story on trans athletes! If you don’t believe me, spend a few hours watching Fox News lately.

**Picking off

Another favorite practice of thugs and bullies is to isolate victims and then make them submit one by one. “Give me your lunch money!” demands the playground bully. “Pay for my protection,” warns the gang leader. “Accept my terms or else,” blusters the thug in the White House.

The bully, mob boss and autocrat know the game well. Each child, merchant or institution, alone, can’t, and very likely won’t, stand up to them. They get their way because their victims are frequently disorganized, leaderless and downtrodden.

Moreover, Trump shrouds his attacks on entirely bogus grounds in order to justify them. With migrants, they are all “criminals and r@pists”—again, a bold accusation/confession. With Canada, it was non-existent fentanyl coming across the border. With the universities, it’s his claim they permitted antisemitism to flourish on campus. That’s an ironic and once again quite telling position coming from an administration where top aides and officials have given public N@zi salutes and supported neo-N@zi ideology and political parties.

Still, by separating out victims from the herd and painting them with broad, unfounded strokes, Trump was able to get his way, at least initially. He forced huge settlements with media companies whose mergers he could hold up. He extorted big law firms into “agreements” to work for free for his causes or lose their security clearance. And he bent Columbia University to his will after he threatened withholding $400 million in federal funding.

Each new capitulation only confirmed to the public that our “guardrails” no longer exist and that Trump’s threats are working because, in the end, our institutions had no spine.

**Too cocky

If Trump had any wits about him, he would know there are limits to what a bully can achieve and some important yet unspoken rules to live by: Keep weaker parties down, reward those who comply with your demands, and don’t take on anyone who might expose you for what you really are.

Trump broke all of these rules in short order, in part because he’s an idiot, and in part because there’s no one around him to tell him honestly that he has overreached or blundered.

It was one thing to go after Canada and Mexico on trade and tariffs. Both economies are highly dependent on the U.S. market and so integrated with our own that a hike in tariffs would throw both into a deep recession. They tried for months to appease Trump, and he very much relished their pleas for relief, but ultimately they did not move him off his mindset.

But it was entirely another thing to go toe-to-toe with an economic superpower, China. After the bond markets forced Trump to back off his “Liberation Day” worldwide tariffs for 90 days, Trump refocused his ire on China alone, raising tariffs on that country to well above 100 percent. But instead of begging for mercy, China retaliated with high tariffs of its own. Chinese analysts and officials declared that not only could their nation weather the storm, China had been around for over 5,000 years (during most of which the U.S. did not even exist), and would not now surrender to Trump in a trade war.

Within a day, and under pressure from high tech executives, Trump caved and exempted many of the most valuable manufactured imports, including chips, electronics and phones.

Remember when Trump kicked the Associated Press out of the White House briefing room because it (checks notes) continued to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by its correct, internationally accepted name? The AP, which isn’t owned by a billionaire whose business with the government can be put at risk, decided to fight back. Last week its suit to stop its exclusion was successful, and the White House reinstated its access—at least for a time.

Trump picked the wrong fight with universities this week, too. He went after Harvard, with its $53 billion endowment, threatening to cut off $2 billion in federal research funding unless it acceded to the White House’s numerous overreaching demands. Like China, Harvard decided that surrender was not an option. Yesterday, it gave Trump the middle finger, to the cheers of other universities who now see that fighting back is not only possible but necessary.

Importantly, Harvard had learned from Columbia’s capitulation, where giving in to Trump had only resulted in more demands and more humiliation. As the New York Times reported, Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia’s president for 21 years, recognized that a strategy of “negotiation and conciliation seems to have no acceptable ending point.” And Dr. Steven Pinker, a psychology professor and co-president of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, believed that the institution might have tried to negotiate as Columbia had, “if it had assurance that the administration was negotiating in good faith.”

**Scorched earth

We’re at the point in the movie when George McFly, after getting knocked around for coming to the rescue of his future wife, has finally gathered enough courage to ball up his fist and punch Biff Tannen in the face, laying him flat.

Trump really doesn’t like it when his victims punch back because he knows how it usually goes for bullies, both in real life and the movies. So he’s trying to destroy any victories before they can take effect.

In Abrego García’s case, the White House has indicated in a filing that even if he is returned to the U.S., he will be deported again because he (allegedly) is a member of MS-13. There’s no credible proof of this other than a mere nonsensical statement from an ICE agent with a highly questionable record. But Trump doesn’t like to “lose,” so he plans to take away the win.

In the AP’s case, the White House has now changed its policy to eliminate the spot in the White House briefing room for the daily press corp rotation altogether. The message is clear: If the courts say the AP cannot be excluded because of its content, then it will be excluded because there will be **no wire service coverage at all** for anyone. As CNN noted, this would impact newswire customers such as local news outlets that rely on the AP because they don’t have White House correspondents of their own.

Now that Harvard has stood up to Trump, the White House claims it will eliminate Harvard’s tax-exempt status if it does not capitulate, adding to the pain he has threatened to inflict upon the university. He is hoping to make an example of Harvard so that other institutions do not get any wild ideas about defying him. Harvard no doubt expected an escalation, but it is holding firm so far and has already indicated that it will sue to protect its rights and its academic freedom.

By going scorched earth, Trump is hoping to crush the spirit of the opposition. After all, what good is it to resist the federal government under Trump if he just finds another way to come after anyone for anything he wants?

**Lifeboats and leaders

This reaction is understandable, but it mistakes the true purpose of resistance to fascism. We don’t resist because we think we will win every fight. We resist because it is the right thing to do. The way to defeat a common thug or bully in the White House is to stand up to him at every turn. He cannot win if all of us are determined to fight.

Perhaps even more importantly, courage is contagious; clear-eyed, determined opposition is what can and will defeat Trumpism.

The late Buddhist master Thíct Nhất Hạnh wrote of the importance of steady leadership and moral clarity in life-threatening circumstances:

"In Vietnam, there are many people, called boat people, who leave the country in small boats. Often the boats are caught in rough seas or storms, the people may panic, and boats can sink. But if even one person aboard can remain calm, lucid, knowing what to do and what not to do, he or she can help the boat survive. His or her expression — face, voice — communicates clarity and calmness, and people have trust in that person. They will listen to what he or she says. One such person can save the lives of many."

Though it has taken some time, and our national vessel seemed all but ready to capsize, we now have many strong examples of what it looks like to stand up to Trumpism. We’ve seen how he often folds his hand when we do. So it is now up to everyone else onboard who, despite fearing for their lives and livelihoods, must now trust in this message, remain calm and collected, and help right our ship.

***

To receive my daily piece on U.S. political and legal developments, follow this page or send me a friend request, then see the replies below to enroll at my site.

My work is supported by subscriptions, so if you’re able to help, consider becoming a paid supporter.

**Please note that certain words have been modified to comply with Facebook's community guidelines

[earhartsease]

Groucho Marx was once in a restaurant where a very rich woman on another table was ostentatiously wearing loads of jewellery, and he apparently said "the last time they counted her rings she was the oldest living thing in california" and we will never not cackle at this

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Jan 8, 2023

Stop me if you’ve heard this one. A man’s wife divorces him and shacks up with his boss. Soon after, a friend suggests that he should remarry. “What for?” he asks. “Are you looking for a wife as well?”

It may not be the funniest joke, but that’s because it’s an anecdote from The Lives of the Caesars by the Ancient Roman historian Suetonius. The comedian in this case was a senator called Aelius Lamia whose wife had left him for the Emperor Domitian. For making this casual quip, Domitian had Lamia put to death. Now that’s a bad review.

It might be worth keeping this anecdote in mind when the usual debates flare up about whether comedy “goes too far”. The notion of people being offended by jokes is as old as comedy itself, and often people react angrily if humour isn’t to their taste. The current manifestation of this age-old debate takes the form of a simple dichotomy: “woke comedy” versus “anti-woke comedy”.

Already we are in treacherous waters. It is very unwise to define whole genres by terms that have no settled definitions. The actor Kathy Burke believes that “woke” simply refers to people who are neither racist nor homophobic, which would surely mean that the overwhelming majority of us would happily embrace the term. But for those who have been on the receiving end of the bullying, harassment and intimidation by activists who self-define as “woke”, it is clear this issue is not so straightforward.

Over the past few years, we have seen the emergence of a new comedy movement, one branded by commentators as “anti-woke”, that seeks to push back against the orthodoxies of our time. Its closest historical precedent is the “alternative” comedians of the Eighties, who also took aim at establishment norms and were often similarly blunt in their approach. The key difference today is that there is no broad agreement about where the power in society lies, and so while “anti-woke” comedians see themselves as anti-establishment, their critics insist that the opposite is true.

Consider the example of Ricky Gervais, whose new Netflix stand-up special Armageddon has sparked this most recent round of discussions about the supposed red lines in comedy. Some have accused Gervais of taking a reactionary stance, most notably because of jokes relating to migrants and disabled children. Gervais has been branded an “anti-woke” comedian, but I doubt very much that he would see it in such reductive terms. Anyone familiar with his work will know that he has always lampooned closed systems of thought, and it just so happens that “wokeness” currently represents the dominant incarnation. There was a time when many of Gervais’s critics were perfectly happy to see him take a wrecking ball to the certainties of religious faith. It would appear they take a different view when it’s their own belief system taking a battering.

A simplistic reading of “woke” versus “anti-woke” comedy is that the former “punches up” while the latter “punches down”, but such rules are incoherent when applied to an inherently anarchic medium. Besides, it simply is not true that there exists a growing number of comedians who are seeking fame and easy laughs by taking aim at the most marginalised in society.

As I have said, it comes down to a question of how one perceives power. Too often the culture war is misconceived as a conflict between Left and Right, with “woke” aligned with the former and “anti-woke” with the latter, but “wokeness” carries with it the kind of clout that transcends the political binary. In their 13 years of government, the Conservatives have presided over the worst excesses of this identity-obsessed ideology and the havoc it has wrought on society. Far from fighting a “war on woke”, they have been actively enabling it.

So where does the real power lie? Is it with governments that can be voted out if the public tires of them? Or is it with activists who now have significant influence in all cultural, educational, political and corporate institutions, and who cannot be dislodged by means of any democratic process? These are the same zealots who have fostered racial division in the name of “anti-racism”, jeopardised the rights of women and gay people through the promotion of gender identity ideology, destabilised the very notion of empirical truth, attempted to rewrite our history and reconstruct our culture, and launched a relentless assault on free speech and the achievements of social liberalism. Just because they describe themselves as being “on the right side of history” doesn’t make it true.

And so, when we read an article in the New Statesman lamenting the “tedious world of anti-woke comedy”, we can be fairly sure that the criticism is political. Does the writer sincerely believe that these performers are simply trying to attack minorities and cause as much offence as possible? This is the least generous of all suppositions, one born out of a fundamental misunderstanding of the art of comedy. It strikes me that many of those who dismiss stand-ups as “anti-woke” are simply berating them for taking an anti-establishment stance and for believing that those in power ought to be ridiculed rather than eulogised. But what is the point of a court jester who acts as a propagandist for the king?

Another common reaction from critics has been to imply that certain topics ought to be ring-fenced, and that joking about them is tantamount to a form of violence. The charity Scope has lambasted Gervais’s new show for containing “ableist slurs” and claimed that “language like this has very real consequences”. But those of us who have seen Armageddon would have to concede that the most obvious consequence appears to be the laughter of audience members who are clearly enjoying themselves. What Gervais’s critics mean is that jokes are like toxins, and that popular culture — if not carefully regulated — has the power to corrupt the Great Unwashed. Mary Whitehouse made the identical argument many decades ago.

Fortunately, her fears were unfounded. Over half a century of research into “media effects” theory — the hypothesis that the public will modify its behaviour according to the mass media it consumes — has seen it roundly discredited. Jokes do not cause violence, unless you are talking about Will Smith slapping Chris Rock at the Oscars, or the Emperor Domitian lopping off the occasional head.

The history of comedy shows us that its practitioners will always cause offence, so why do we continue to squabble over where the red lines ought to be drawn? No matter how many times you shift the boundary, it will still end up being crossed. I am not implying here that there is anything wrong with criticism, however puritanical it might be. Comedians who violate popular sensibilities have always faced pushback and resentment. The problem arises when the offended parties seek to impose their tastes on everyone else. So while I support anyone’s right to criticise Gervais’s show, I am disturbed by those who have called on Netflix to censor the offending material.

Personally, I have always relished those comedians who have no clear affiliations, who take aim in all directions and unsettle as much as they entertain. But today’s comedy industry is not a hospitable environment for these sorts of freethinkers. For some years now, there has been an undeniable strain of groupthink among those in positions of power: promoters, commissioners, critics and even some performers. Acts who conform have been rewarded, while those who refuse to do so have been shunned. It hasn’t taken much for up-and-coming comics to realise that it is more profitable to be seen to convey the “correct” message rather than to develop their craft in innovative and individual ways. The impulse to serve Mammon rather than the Muses has enervated the comedy scene, and self-censorship is now the norm.

The writer Graham Linehan is living proof of how heretics are treated in the current climate. For blaspheming against the holy creed of gender identity ideology — one embraced wholesale by the gatekeepers of the comedy industry — he has been unable to work for six years. In his new memoir, Tough Crowd, he discusses how his musical adaptation of Father Ted has been scotched, either because the bosses at Hat Trick Productions (which owns the rights) are too cowardly to be seen promoting his work, or because activist elements within the company disapprove of his views.

Only a couple of decades ago, it was virtually unheard of for comedy promoters to take seriously complaints from audience members claiming to be “offended”. Now, it takes little more than a few disgruntled tweets for venues to panic and cancel bookings. But the backlash is palpable. Many of us have grown weary of comedians toeing the establishment line and substituting agitprop for jokes. Some “anti-woke” comedy may lack sophistication and subtlety, but maybe that’s a small price to pay to redress the balance and reenergise the art form. If you want to smash taboos, sometimes you need a sledgehammer.

==

Social constructivists believe that language doesn't describe reality, it creates reality. That's why they get so angry when anyone blasphemes against their authoritarian ideology. It's like casting a counter-spell which undermines the parallel universe they've conjured.

The people complaining about Ricky Gervais' comedy have nothing to say about the other 95% of his performance.

We have to ignore them.

[girlyguy]

That CEO killed orders of magnitude more patients indirectly than his killer killed people directly.

UnitedHealthcare CEO shooting (4 December 2024)

Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

[sjbattleangel]

Special thanks to @agramuglia for inspiring this awful joke.

Everyone: "Steven Universe/She-Ra/Avatar: The Last Airbender/The Legend Of Korra/Star Wars: The Last Jedi/The Last Of Us/The Last Of Us Part II/The MCU/G. Willow Wilson's Ms. Marvel run/Gail Simone's Birds Of Prey run/The Dark Crystal: Age Of Resistance/The Persona games/The Sandman/X-Men/The Simpsons/Everything by Dan Slott/Everything by Tom Taylor/Everything by Jason Aaron/Everything by Donny Cates/Everything by Brian Michael Bendis/Everything by Devin Grayson/Everything by Jonathan Hickman/Everything by Scott Snyder/Everything by James Tynion IV/Everything by Joshua Williamson, etc are anti-intellectual, regressive, pro-status quo, far-right Trojan Horses pretending to be "diverse and progressive" just so they can take advantage of naïve leftists."

Me: "No. That's Velma".

[quark-nova]

"No you don't understand, calling out 'culturally muslim atheists' is still punching up because they're oppressors."

So it was never about institutional power at all, "punching up" is just an excuse for "punching people we think are the bad guys".

[biggest-gaudiest-patronuses]

legal disclaimer that I'm not saying we should execute CEOs in the street, but what if we doxxed them. what if we plastered their names and faces all over social media. what if we made them nervous to go out in public for fear of actually experiencing a single consequence for their actions. what if we built a culture where CEOs get regularly bitch-slapped in the street is what I'm saying

[che-rrys-stuff]

I was today years old when I found out Yusuke Murata uses BL as a reference to draw male characters in One Punch Man

Now everything makes sense

[lokutofu]

Lovestruck 💘

I wanted to draw Jason and this drawing has been in my drafts for a hot minute!

[bobzillashiftwoods]

Start leaving one star reviews at big chain retailers for class solidarity.

[batfam-stuff-posts-0]

Bruce: Tim and Damian did what?

Jason: Well, Alfred said they weren't allowed to see Dick because he was still recovering from last night, and the only way they could stay was if they were injured.

Bruce: And?

Jason: So they punched each other in the face and told him they were injured.

Bruce:

Jason

Steph: I gotta admire their dedication

[knox-knocks]

Can’t get over the trojans expecting jean to be a big scary raven and getting a scared, sweet kid instead vs the foxes expecting a quiet and unassuming neil and getting a loud mouth mafia nepo baby (affectionate)

[ultrameganicolaokay]

my trans jokes are better than dave chappelle's trans jokes

everyone assumes that trans women want to go into women's sports because we want to beat up women. if that were true we wouldn't have transitioned, we'd have become cops

[rhinestonesox]

When Senshi was young in the dungeon the majority of the adults he were with ostracized him. All except Gillin, who died to make sure Senshi had something to eat: unseasoned boiled meat that may or may not have been one of their comrades.

It really puts into perspective why he was so nurturing towards Chilchuck. When Chil reveals he’s 28 to the party, Senshi responds by telling him that he thought he was older. Senshi was in his 30s when he and his comrades got trapped in the dungeon, so it’s safe to assume that he thought Chil was at a similar age.

He met a young boy who was, from his perspective, forced to do dangerous work in the dungeon just like he was, and so, Senshi made an effort to look after Chilchuck in the same way Gillin looked after him.

Mind you, when Senshi was young in the dungeon he had to starve for weeks, eat the horse he loved, and finish it off spending the next i don’t know how many years wondering if he committed cannibalism.

Senshi understands first hand the value of nutrition and proper eating, so when he’s with the party he makes an effort to make sure they’re all eating a full and balanced diet. Not only that, but Senshi INVOLVES them in the process of getting food to eat, always preparing it in front of them and narrating every ingredient in the process so that there’s no doubt about what they’re eating.