#racially insensitive language

[doubleca5t]

A lot of it comes down to this attitude that white queer people tend to have that our queerness is separate from or supersedes our whiteness. We tend to view queerness and queer experiences as a universal thing rather than something that's shaped by cultural experiences, and so when media from other countries or demographics doesn't align with our experiences, a lot of people's kneejerk reaction is that it isn't authentically queer, and rather than examining that, a lot of people just take it as self-evident truth that queer rep in animanga is worse/fetishizing/always bad/fill in the blank with your racially-insensitive rhetoric of choice.

Combined with the stereotype that Japan as a country is politically and socially regressive that's existed since literally as long as white people have known Japan existed, and anime fandoms become sort of a microcosm of white saviorism narratives of Japan, where of course queer media that's made in Japan is bad, fetishizing, and inauthentic to real white American queer people, and we, real white American queer people need to fix the bad Japanese queer representation with our headcanons/fanfic/whatever. And because this is talked about through queer language rather than the language of whiteness, it allows people to ignore the racism that simmers under this kind of rhetoric.

I would also add that queer culture in the anglosphere tends to get unusually hung up on terminology and taxonimizing different types of queerness, and so when someone who's become very sensitive to that kind of stuff engages with queer culture from outside the anglosphere, the reaction tends to be something like "why are they using such regressive language?" Or "why aren't they using the correct term for this?" Instead of just appreciating queer art and culture on its own terms

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich

* * * *

Defying the odds, Trump steals spotlight from JD Vance (and not in a good way)

August 1, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Trump's interview at the National Association of Black Journalists convention was an unmitigated disaster of campaign-altering dimensions. The only person in the US happy with Trump's miserable performance was JD Vance—who will enjoy a few minutes out of the spotlight.

It is easy to mock Trump for his calamitous interview—and we should. Taking Trump down a few notches by making clear that he is a cringe-worthy, awkward, bloviating narcissist is a good development. But he is also filled with rage, prejudice, and hate, as his answers make clear. Both aspects of Trump's 32-minute interview deserve to be highlighted—because both demonstrate that he is unfit for office (or even for polite company).

Aaron Rupar has compiled a ten-minute “super-cut” of the interview that is worth watching in its entirety. See YouTube, Trump self-immolates at National Association Black Journalists convention: a supercut.

Rachel Scott of ABC began the interview by asking Trump a tough question about Trump's prior statements about minorities, which sent Trump into a black hole of rage. Scott asked,

You have pushed false claims about people like President Barack Obama, saying he was not born in the United States, which is not true. You have told four congresswomen, women of color who were American citizens, to go back to where they came from. You have used words like ‘animal’ to describe Black district attorneys. You've attacked Black journalists, calling them a loser, saying the questions that they ask are quote, ‘stupid and racist.’ You've had dinner with a white supremacist at Mar-a-Lago. So my question, sir, now that you are asking Black supporters to vote for you, why should Black voters trust you after you have used language like that?

Trump never recovered from that question, immediately pivoting to attacking Rachel Scott as “rude,” “nasty,” and “horrible,” saying that she worked for “fake news ABC.”

Among the many horrible things Trump said during the interview was to question Kamala Harris’s identification as a Black woman and an Indian woman. Mother Jones covered Trump's challenge to Kamala Harris’s identity with this headline: White Man Tells Black Journalists His Black Opponent Is Not Black. Trump said,

She was always of Indian heritage. She was only promoting Indian heritage, I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black. So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?

After offending Black Americans, Indian Americans, and all multi-racial Americans, Trump doubled-down on his insensitive comments by posting on Truth Social the following statement:

Crazy Kamala is saying she's Indian, not Black. This is a big deal. Stone cold phony. She uses everybody, including her racial identity!

Racial identity is a sensitive and personal issue. Trump not only failed to show any sensitivity or understanding, but he also tried to shame Kamala Harris for her identity as a daughter of a Black father and an Indian mother. Based on social media posts and statements by Trump surrogates, it is clear the campaign believes that focusing on Kamala Harris’s racial identity is a winning strategy. Only a white billionaire living in a bubble of sycophants would believe that strategy will increase his chances of election.

Trump also said he would pardon January 6 insurrectionists convicted of beating police officers and that he would give immunity to police officers charged with killing citizens.

None of the above captures Trump's boorish, insulting, aggressive behavior toward the three Black female journalists who attempted to interview him. You should watch the video to see that behavior. At one point, Trump reached over to take the bottle of water belonging to Rachel Scott, appearing to screw the lid tightly—apparently to make it difficult for Scott to open the bottle (?). Whatever the reason, it was a weird, aggressive way to act out Trump's anger toward Scott.

Most importantly, the event reminded us of the daily chaos and ugly confrontations that typified life during the Trump administration. The Harris campaign issued a statement that made that point:

Statement on Donald Trump Showing Exactly Who He Is at NABJ

The hostility Donald Trump showed on stage today is the same hostility he has shown throughout his life, throughout his term in office, and throughout his campaign for president as he seeks to regain power and inflict his harmful Project 2025 agenda on the American people. Trump lobbed personal attacks and insults at Black journalists the same way he did throughout his presidency-while he failed Black families and left the entire country digging out of the ditch he left us in. Donald Trump has already proven he cannot unite America, so he attempts to divide us. Today's tirade is simply a taste of the chaos and division that has been a hallmark of Trump's MAGA rallies this entire campaign. It's also exactly what the American people will see from across the debate stage as Vice President Harris offers a vision of opportunity and freedom for all Americans. All Donald Trump needs to do is stop playing games and actually show up to the debate on September 10.

Trump and Vance are both stumbling as Kamala Harris projects confidence and inspires enthusiasm. That does not guarantee that we will win, but it certainly places Democrats in a strong position for the last 97 days of the campaign.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[columboscreens]

Identity Crisis has my favorite moment. McGoohan invites Columbo into his very swanky home, then speaks to his butler in a completely made-up language. I think he even literally says, "bingy bong pow pow boing" to this man with a straight face.

yeah i literally cannot keep a straight face whenever this part comes on. i personally like myself and value my time so i'm not gonna painstakingly transcribe patrick mcgoohan's weirdly racially insensitive faux southeast asian tongue. however i will, as i say, initiate the uninitiated:

[boysborntodie]

Latino!Johnny is super popular in the fandom and my headcanon too but I wanted to elaborate a little bit on why I think it's important to both the narrative and his character for Johnny to be so (no matter what SE Hinton says).

(Also I am not Latino or American, and all my information is second-hand so if I'm wrong about something or said something insensitively, I apologise and please correct me!!)

While Greaser is now mostly used to in reference to the subculture, the word 'Greaser' was often used as a slur against Mexican/Hispanic American, especially in the Southwest.

Greaser subculture itself is heavily rooted in ethnic groups such as Italian, Greek, Latino and Hispanic Americans, both influencing the subculture itself while being the main demographic (at least at first, having later spread around to lower class Americans in general and becoming a sort of movement).

Johnny’s main reason as being depicted as a POC seems to be the scene where he tells Ponyboy his skin is too dark for him to have blond hair. But I think it goes beyond just that and that race is a theme ever-present in Johnny’s progression throughout the book.

Now with Johnny, his entire character is, at first, summed up as 'poor kid who's been kicked down too many times'. He’s got no prospects. He’s bad at school. His parents despise him and he’s, for the most part, homeless.

We later learn that Johnny isn’t actually unintelligent in academic matters. He’s able to pick up themes and details quite easily. The education system is very flawed and has failed many students for centuries. Students of colour have often been neglects and even abused by teachers (esp in the past eras). This is espec true of children whose first language isn’t English.

One thing that I’m a little hesitant to get into but I think it important is that Johnny’s constantly noted to use a lot of grease, more so than any other character. He also keeps his hair quite long and unkempt. Hair is a status symbol and sign of pride for greasers but Italian, Greek, Hispanic and Latino people have been stereotyped as unhygienic and unkempt, especially in regards to their hair.

At one point, Johnny and Ponyboy find themselves in need of directions. Johnny suggests Ponyboy pretend to be a farmboy.

Ponyboy’s constantly says that Johnny looks like a kicked puppy and pretty much harmless. But here he notes that Johnny looks threatening to a stranger. I think this is another scene with racial connotations.

A major event in Johnny’s life was the time he was attacked by Bob and his friends. Johnny’s been noted to have developed PTSD, paranoia and anxiety since then. The suddenness of his attack and extent of violence is unusual. Ponyboy also notes that Johnny isn’t afraid of getting hurt due to his abusive father, so it wasn’t the pain but rather it was the fear they made him feel that affected him. Johnny being a POC adds another layer to this entire incident and especially to his paranoia afterwards, especially with the details that are left vague.

The last point I want to bring up is that Johnny’s character is of one who’s deeply embedded into the Greaser subculture. He’s never been outside of Tulsa and doesn’t expect to ever leave. He’s put against character like the Curtises (who are white) who have the power to leave Tulsa (and the class dynamics it symbolises) and even those like Dally who have that power but are too deep to ever use it. Johnny being a POC makes this lack of freedom his other white friends have give his character even more complexity

TL;DR: That is a Latino man.

[triviareads]

Shonda has clearly never read more than one Historical Romance book in her life and it's so apparent here:

It's so obvious the woman literally knows nothing about the historical romance genre here. Like I'm sorry, but who the hell sees a woman riding astride in a period piece and thinks "she's a WANTON WOMAN"?

At BEST, Kate would be seen as an NLOG because a surefire way to paint a female characters as Not Like Other Girls in HR is to have her ride astride. Shonda's "joke" about her being scandalized comes across as ignorant at best and quite frankly sexist and racially insensitive at worst. If Shonda had ACTUALLY bothered to read other HR then she'd know that LITERALLY NO ONE is going to think Kate is a wanton. Also, the fact that they double down on language like "hooker" and "wanton" makes me so uncomfortable. It is one thing if they sought to present Kate as sexually liberated (which HR sometimes does with women), but they did a shit job of that with Kate if that's what they were going for. Kate, while mildly assertive, absolutely reads like a virgin who was literally overwhelmed by Anthony going down on her to the degree that there were disastrous consequences the day after. But Shonda and Co. keep saying bullshit like "hooker" and "wanton" in this derogatory fashion which comes across as super racist towards a woman of South Asian descent, and more than a little sexist if they've deluded themselves into thinking a woman riding astride would cause a MODERN audience to make aspersions on her virginity.

It's also very telling based on the language they use when describing Kate's, a brown woman, sexuality compared to how they described the sexuality of Daphne, a white woman. Daphne is lauded for her wanting to explore herself and her sexuality, to the degree that the creators of the show COMPLETELY disregarded the fact that she sexually assaulted her husband, a Black man, and played it off as DAPHNE being the victim (this was especially apparent when they had the audacity to show her crying over getting her period again, meaning she didn't get pregnant as a result of her assaulting her husband). On the other hand, the creators clearly tried to cast Kate as someone who knew what she was doing when it came to her sexuality which, in and of itself, there is nothing wrong with, but then you bring race in as a factor, as well as Shonda and Betsey's derogatory language like "hooker" and "wanton", and you're left feeling less than comfortable with how this show handled race and sex in YET another way.

[personal-blog243]

Quick thought about cultural appropriation in language discourse….

I am white so I hope I can handle this topic appropriately, but I would like to hear from some POC about if picking up words, slang, or speech patterns from someone of another culture is ALWAYS INHERENTLY insensitive or not.

I am NOT trying to excuse using another cultures accent or dialect to MOCK them because obviously that’s mean, but my state of Tennessee has not been LEGALLY racially segregated since the 1960’s and black teenagers and white teenagers are allowed to be friends now, so I don’t necessarily think that it’s as simple as “white gen z teenagers are STEALING black words”.

Also black Americans have had a MASSIVE influence over pop culture and slang and youth culture ever since Jazz music and record players were invented over 100 years ago so it’s not like today’s white teenagers are only just now discovering black people exist on TikTok. This has been part of the cultural discourse ever since jazz records were able to be sold to people from other cultures.

I am NOT saying that it is ok to MOCK other people’s slang. I am NOT saying that racism and cultural appropriation aren’t still real issues that need fixing. We still unfortunately live in an unequal system.

I am just saying I happen to live just outside of a rapidly growing city that has become more diverse over the past few decades and I live in a country that once claimed to be a “melting pot of diversity” so I think there are ways to blend cultures and pick up on slang in a way that isn’t inherently racist.

Also there is more than just “white people” and “black people” so where do Asians, Latin Americans, Native Americans, etc. and their slang and engagement with other cultures fit into this? I am obviously just one white idiot on tumblr who is NOT an expert so I would hope some POC would weigh in on this? What are some examples that are insensitive and what is not? In what ways might I be missing the point?

[shrinkrants]

In 2017, a young Black woman of Togolese descent, TG, visited the emergency department due to distress and panic attacks related to previous sexual assaults. She was admitted to an inpatient psychiatric unit and diagnosed with psychosis. Upon discharge, she was prescribed perphenazine, a first-generation antipsychotic with greater side effect risks. Despite her symptoms being primarily related to mood and trauma, her dosage was increased by subsequent providers. In 2021, a team at Yale Department of Psychiatry determined that she had been misdiagnosed with schizophrenia due to racial bias. After a thorough review of her medical records and social history, TG received a re-diagnosis of major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Adjusting her medication led to a significant improvement in her depression, anxiety, and panic attacks.

In an article published in Harvard Review of Psychiatry, physicians at the Yale Department of Psychiatry present the case of TG to explore the mechanisms behind what they call “psychiatry’s longest-standing inequities born of real-time clinician racial bias” and its iatrogenic harm to patients who come to seek their help for other mood or trauma-related disorders. They write:

“For TG, she had consistently been telling providers about her sexual trauma for years only to have ED and outpatient providers doubt her report of abuse as a possible ‘delusion.’ During her second ED encounter in August 2018, documentation depicts her testimony using appallingly insensitive language, including ‘increasingly bizarre statements about supposed rape.’” Here, we can see how “biased perceptions of dishonesty intersect with bias against believing sexual assault survivors.”

[notesfromthepalace]

Vanilla Coconut

I don't mean to boast but I am a well-traveled woman and I know how it feels to be sought after by men from all Nationalities, okay.

And as said before, the Lord has sent me my African King so I am not looking for attention from other men or woman - I am beyond happy.

And as I write at one of my favorite places, "On My Mama" by Victoria Monet is playing - and I know I've been giving big body gyal and goals lately - "I look fly, I look good".

But back to being world-wide and highly sought after.

Prior to being with my Ghanian heart-throb, I have and have always been open to dating outside my culture and race, meaning dating men that are not Haitian, and also men who are not Black. Even now, with both he and I being Black, we're still of different cultures.

Friends, when I went to Europe at 19, the men were enamored. The hair, the curves, the skin, I was exotic to them.

Now, at 25, I understand some of it was the hyper-sexualization and fetishization of Black women, but for others, that were just mesmerized by the beauty, I allowed them to take me to fancy dinners and have amazing conversations about the world and everything glamorous and expensive.

Point being, I am not un-accustomed to they eyes of men that do not look like me.

Now, what I have noticed is you'll have men that are not black, but are well traveled and when they compliment you its:

"You are so beautiful"

Actually, it's always that.

But when it comes to American white men who are not from a diverse community - and you can tell their version of traveling is just being on guided tours and not immersing themselves in the culture of whatever country they're in, the compliments are either very racially insensitive or super "frat-boy" language:

"You're so hot" "You're so different" "I love how long and straight your hair is" "You're hot AF" "I always thought you were so hot"

Emphasis on the "hotness" thing right? That's how 16 year-old horny teenagers talk. And if I'm completely honest, after hearing it multiple times from the same person, especially with the statement being an assessment of just sex-appeal, it starts to make me feel a little uncomfortable just because I don't like being hyper-sexualized. And those comments usually come from a place of hyper-sexualization.

Sometimes it doesn't, but you mean to tell me that there are grown men who are well established who don't know how to talk to women?

Further more, there are women who are actually receptive to this type of dialogue?

*Bombastic side eye

Mind you, I am so messy when it comes to spilling the tea to the African Chief: I was literally on the phone with him telling him everything this man was telling me as he was slipping and sliding in my DM's, and still is - even after I said I had a boyfriend and that I'm not interested.

And of course, my Lover-man makes the joke "Oh, you thought you would get a man and other men would stop trying to get with you? No baby, you are a beautiful woman, men will always seek you".

Before I continue with the story, I just wanted to thank God for my man. He is truly a Godly man who understands that:

He is with a woman who loves him unconditionally - meaning I tell him these things because he's my man, but I am not going anywhere. He gives BIG HUSBAND BIG PROVIDER GREAT FATHER GREAT LEADER - and that's what I prayed for when I felt like I was ready to be with the love of my life.

He also understands that he is with a very desirable woman - meaning he's so secure in himself that he knows men will throw themselves at me because I am attractive. But he loves the fact that when we walk into places with me on his arm, we're the focus of the room - really me but we all get the point *wink wink

And we talked about it and from a Spiritual standpoint, the devil will always try to destroy good things. But my GOD is greater and rebuke all of that.

And even as I am writing this, this man is still in my DM's.

And yes, the Ghanian Protector will hear about this tonight.

But I thought this was just too juicy to keep to myself until the weekend.

Moral of the story is homie is giving single-white-female and the Ghanian King knows everything!

As always ladies,

Fall is here and it is time for the oranges and yellows, boots and coats, and smoky eye-shadow.

With love, a little shade and tea,

Sarah Chanel

bisous

[mueritos]

Dont feel like answering this question if you arent comfortable but I need some advice,, my sibling came out as trans recently and although I am very supportive of them, they chose a Japanese name as their new name and like. I dont know how to explain that as white people we should not be choosing non-white names for ourselves.

Mmm, yea, it is a bit weird. Actually it's a lot weird. I would just be upfront about it. There is intention here from your sibling to claim their trans identity with a new name that is unique, but their form of being unique is just distancing themselves from their whiteness. Be upfront, let them know you fully support their transition and their ability to choose a new name, but that their new name can come across to MANY bipoc and bipoc trans people as offensive. Names are not aesthetics, and many non-english names may have specific histories tied to them that can be culturally insensitive if removed. Tell them that names do not exist in a vacuum, and just because they found the name to be cool, it's not right to randomly call yourself a name from another language to be different. If you're like nordic, german, french, but have little ties to it but want to celebrate it, that would be cool to have a name from those languages, but definitely not one from a cultural and racial group you do not belong to. It's just a bit too weird. Hope this helped, and good luck!

[mourningmaybells]

damien karras being described as having a "dark face" or being called "the dark priest" in the book could mean anything. like maybe he looks depressed or maybe people think he looks sinister, or maybe the people describing him were racially insensitive but it was acceptable at the time. i dont know. i can't decode this language

[winxwiki]

hi! i was wondering how you felt about that "one" scene in winx club that was banned? did the scene go differently in the original italian version?

as a black girl who loves winx, it was sad for me to see </3 im just curious how the reception in other places was

Hi there! First of all, I have the banned episode from this ancient Mondo DVD, since it's been taken down from youtube and other streaming services, even in italian. I will sub this ep regardless of the infamous scene, since I don't think there's anything controversial outside of that

In short, TLDR, in my humble opinion, the scene is racially insensitive and overly meanspirited from the heroines we should root for. The average italian kid didn't think much of it when it aired and re-ran, Italian adults lack the cultural context of black hair outside the country so most didn't understand the complaints and non-white italians did not seem to make any noise about this online. If anybody can prove me wrong is welcome to provide sources that I missed.

More under the cut!

There was some disco resurgence in the early 2000s around, in Italy and Japan, so that's what inspired the scene, likely.

A frog! With an afro!

Bucatini dance!

Is there a history of discrimination over textured and curly hair in Italy? As far as I know, no. You see white people with dreads and braids all the time and for historical reasons, curly and textured hair is common in people's genes. From what I've seen from italian forums and social media, I have read no complaints from black italians about the scene, so it definitely didn't move the italian black community or anything to stir any controversy.

Alright. With that out of the way... As a kid, I didn't think too much of the scene. I didn't think "wow, that hair is bad/ugly/something mean", or anything of the sort, and this seems to be the general sentiment from other italian watchers. I didn't think anything of the poor black girl being mocked. Being from a filler episode, the scene is rather forgettable to the average euro person.

I thought the hair wasn't even normal afro hair. And so did many others, according to italian social media posts...

I thought it had become JELLO! The hair is shiny and makes a strange noise when Bloom touches it. I'm still sure it's jello.

Bloom touching the hair unprovoked is also kind of nasty.

Some don't believe it's jello at all and I can't fault them for it, since the poor girl doesn't say any details. Just that her straight hair turned into "this thing".

The language used in this scene is meanspirited.

"What did she put on her head?" is a bit too much from Stella. You see a girl crying and you mock her?

The Winx don't even do anything for her, just standing back and watching. The Trix mocking her is one thing, but the Winx could have tried to help, only for them to give up as the girl has a breakdown, I dunno, better than nothing or Bloom's terrible attempt. The whole scene isn't easy to save and I don't think anybody should bother, not even the 4Kids edit improves it much. Just cut it out.

The joke was likely at afro hair looking funny itself, rather than make the black girl seem undesiderable for having an afro, as I've read from some interpretations. All italians I've read and asked agree that they didn't think maliciously of the scene as kids nor now. At least there's that.

A surprising amount of people thought the scene wasn't racist at all though, and couldn't understand why would this be offensive, while those who agreed it was bad still argued that banning the episode was too much.

The italian side has been very focused on the whitewashing discourse, though. Not since Magical Adventure as some have noted, but ever since the fairy couture dropped.

These are from 2022! What have they done to Aisha!

Anyway, thanks for reading all the way there. I'd like to hear more opinions, provided they're brought in a civil manner. Because I've seen a lot of nastyness on this argument and I'd rather not deal with trolls.

These poor girls!

[khaleesiofalicante]

hi

debate girl here

my side is saying that "Responsible journalism does NOT exist in India"

I would love some help😭 (why is it not surprising you've done debates. you're so smart. every new thing I learnt about you and you become better and better)

I really really wanna win, but I'm kinda..aa clueless

once again, thank you for the help

First things first, if you’ve done a debate before, you’d get this: your points and exactly what you're gonna say depend on what the person before you in your team has said. You can't repeat points. For example, if they already talk about sensationalism, you can't. Don't be repetitive. It's very bad in debates because it makes it look like you don't have a proper argument and are just saying the same thing.

Your argument also depends on the person who goes before you from the other team. You don't know what they’re going to say, so you can't always be prepared for it. Let's say your point is on political bias and they say political bias doesn't exist, then that's easy. You can have a nice flow because you're arguing against them. But if they make a completely different point, don't ignore it. You can say something like, "While the opposition raises a valid concern regarding XYZ, it's crucial to also consider ABC because..."

Re the other ask: About sensationalism, you can definitely focus on the sensationalism of gender-based violence (especially rape cases). Also, political bias is a specific topic, but there are other forms of bias too. Make sure to mention racial bias, caste bias, religious bias, etc. You can have biased reporting as one big point.

Regardless of whether you're talking about sensationalism or bias, ALWAYS refer to examples. For instance, you can talk about bias in reporting during the recent elections. Mention the paper, date of publication, and what the headline/content/video said. You're gonna have to do research for this! But this is very, very important. Try to pick examples everyone will know so they can relate to it.

An excellent way to start your debate (not yours, but your team's) is to establish what is meant by responsible journalism. Like, what is the definition? I'd recommend that you pick the definition from the National Press Council of India's code for journalists' conduct because then you are setting the standards (as defined by your country) and then you are going to argue how India is not meeting these standards. The above will be what the person who is opening the debate (first speaker) from your side should talk about.

The rest (other than the person who finishes) can pick out some of the standards mentioned in the journalist conduct code I shared (some important things I noticed were guidelines for religion/caste, gender reporting, HIV, election, reporting on children, use of images). You can pick the topics you want to talk about based on what is actually your preference and what you can find lots of examples on.

I'd personally go for gender-based violence reporting because, god knows, there are lots of issues there (victim blaming, violations of privacy, sensationalism) and it's also sadly easy to find examples for this. Some resources that talk about insensitive gender resources in India (but please do your own research based on your state/language too!!!!)

#GBVInMedia Social Media Campaign

Some research stats on this topic

Excellent study on this topic!

Also, a good note to finish your debate on (for the final speaker) is that responsible journalism is not only currently not there, but also will be difficult in the future because the concept of journalism itself is changing rapidly with social media and the emergence of citizen journalism – everyday people reporting news and not bothering with standards or ethics or sensitivity. It's hard to make this issue go away when there is no accountability (people aren't punished or there are no consequences for bad reporting), and therefore, until we have that, it's going to remain the same.

It's such a fun topic and I wish you all the best with it! Hope this helps x

[coralpenguincherryblossom]

covid and mental health

By Rachel Shannon

Everyone can relate to the fact that covid was a stressful period in our human existence. Some people struggled more than others but no hardship should be weighed or compared to one another's. It was both a tribulation and a learning experience. Before covid, we lived in a very rushed Society. The work day was 9-5 Monday through Friday, we never thought to challenge it. Now post covid, some people don't work on Mondays or have half a day on Fridays, or some people work completely remote which never used to be an option. We now take more time for our emotional health and embrace therapy which for decades previously was considered taboo.  To get to this point, Society had to face some tough adversities which include mental health decline in Victoria Australia, harsh discriminatory challenges for Asian Americans, and radical transitions for college students. These three scenarios are just a few examples of some of the many ways in which covid impacted our mental health. These situations brought awareness to the way we view and treat mental health.

Since covid, intentional self-harm rates skyrocketed in Victoria Australia due to lack of employment opportunities and social isolation. While young people are less susceptible to covid, the pandemic did disproportionately affect their psychosocial development, as social connectedness and social identity are important factors in youth. Suicide attempt hospitalization rates ranged from 77.4 to 97.9 events per 100,000 population between 2012-2013 and 2019-2020. Rates were higher outside of urban areas. It is estimated that the self-harm hospitalization rates in Greater Melbourne was 75.9 per 100,000 population compared to 112.0 per 100,000 population in the rest of Victoria. The Victorian mental health system was extensively evaluated by the Royal Commission on the advice of the Victorian government. The Royal Commission found  that the state's mental health system was unable to respond to the needs of the people suffering from mental illness or psychological distress, unsuitable to meet current and future demands, and an urgent need for reform. 

“Pre-existing individual factors, such as poorer physical health, a history of chronic illness, or pre-existing mental health problems, have been associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression during COVID-19. Other individual factors may be important too, for example introverted individuals are somewhat less likely to have high quality social support systems compared to extraverts. Consistent evidence shows that adults experiencing pre-existing socio-economic disadvantages face increased mental health problems related to COVID-19.” (Westrupp,”et al.”2023)

While Westrupp explains that pre-existing conditions occurred in parents and children in Victoria before covid, these conditions were made worse from government restrictions and shutdowns.

Since covid, the Asian-American population have faced intense racial discrimination which include verbal harassment and physical assault. This is mainly due to media outlets blaming China for the pandemic.  A recent Pew Research Center report found that approximately 31% of Asian American adults reported being the subject of slurs or jokes because of their race or ethnicity, and about 58% of Asian American adults shared that it is more common for people to express racist or racially insensitive views about Asians than it was before the covid-19 outbreak. The increase in racial discrimination against Asian Americans during the covid-19 pandemic has also contributed to covid-19 discrimination fear, which exacerbated mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. 

“Anti-Asian racism has always been present in the US society for over 150 years, though it has been encoded in different vocabulary and language in different periods of time.”(Adachi,2022).

Adachi explains that the “Yellow Peril” which is described as western fears of Asians, especially Chinese, would invade their land and disrupt western values, started as far back as the 1870s. Although these fears already existed, there has been an uptick in racial discriminatory acts since covid due to media outlets and politicians. 

Covid took a strain particularly on college students. College is already a stressful time for young adults then covid added the pressure of social distancing, working remotely and in extreme cases leaving their dorm and finding residence elsewhere. Many may argue that stress among college students is unrelated to covid and that it’s been an ongoing issue for some time. McLafferty writes that a survey was conducted of students who attended college in Northern Ireland in the fall of 2019, then again a year later found that high levels of mental health problems were already present among students commencing college. Although college students were already struggling before the pandemic, it’s important to understand that covid exacerbated pre-existing mental health conditions.

“Students assessed post pandemic reported significantly more symptoms of anxiety and depression than students assessed pre pandemic, and these two cohorts are reporting more symptoms in many areas than a cohort of students assessed 25 years earlier.”(Nails,2023). 

In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic made the Victorian government aware of the urgent need for better mental health care for their people, brought to light the racial injustice of Asian-Americans, and showed the massive strain covid had on college students. These three situations highlight the severity in which covid affected our mental health. After the pandemic, it was realized that mental health care was at the bottom of the list of priorities. This awareness led to changes such as flexible working conditions and more need for therapy. Therapy also became more available remotely. Not only should we spread awareness on the issue of mental health but we should also take combative steps to help such as make therapy more affordable and hire more mental health providers. Unfortunately it took this catastrophic event to make us open our eyes. With this better awareness and understanding, we as a society can tackle mental health issues head on. 

Vacher, C., Ho, N., Skinner, A., Robinson, J., Freebairn, L., Lee, G. Y., Iorfino, F., Prodan, A., Song, Y. J. C., Jo-An Occhipinti, & Hickie, I. B. (2022). Optimizing Strategies for Improving Mental Health in Victoria, Australia during the COVID-19 Era: A System Dynamics Modelling Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(11), 6470. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116470

Westrupp, Bennett, Berkowitz, Youssef, Toumbourou, Tucker, Andrews, Evans, Teague, Karantzas, Melvin, Olsson, Macdonald, Greenwood, Mikocka-Walus, Hutchinson, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, Stokes, Olive, Wood, Feb2023, child, parent, and family mental health and functioning in Australia during COVID-19: comparison to pre-pandemic data

Huang, C. J., & Huang, C. Y. (2023, December 21). The Moderating Role of Emotion Regulation Strategies on Asian American Parents’ Discrimination Experiences and Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000714

Adachi, Nobuko, 2022, Yellow Peril Redux: Vitalizing Pre-Existing Racial Conditions with a New Symbol

Nails, Julianna. “A Crisis in College Student Mental Health? Self-Ratings of Psychopathology Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, 11 Nov. 2023, psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-78779-001

McLafferty, Ward, Walsh, O’Neill, Bjourson, McHugh, Brown, McBride, Brady, Murray, Nov 2023, College Student Mental Health and Wellbeing Prior to and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

[cbrownjc]

Twitter discourse update:

Anne Rice is being called a racist now for having a main character as a plantation owner.

Have these people read even a single novel? I'm beginning to hate this fandom rn

George RR Martin has so much problematic stuff in his books,Stephen King too,I don't see people attacking them. Colleen Hoover romanticizes DV and her books are always sold out.

I'm sorry if this comes off as insensitive but I'd like to know your thoughts. I don't think Anne did it with malicious intention.

Hey Anon,

Honestly, I don't feel comfortable declaring what Anne may or may not have been personally. I mean, I don't think she made Louis a plantation owner out of some malicious intent, but that's only because of how Louis is presented in that book. But she did have her own racial ignorances as well I'd say.

Louis' position of being a slave owner isn't romanticized in the book, at least in my reading of it. He is very much of his time with all the racism that comes with that. (And book-Louis IS racist, that is very clear, IMO.) And that all becomes analogous when he is turned into a vampire, a supernatural creature that prays on the innocent.

IMO it's more book fans who tend to romanticize book-Louis than the actual text does when it comes to this and him being a slave owner and the racism he both exhibits and is a part of sustaining. (Some of the language used to describe book-Louis by some fans screams Southern Plantation "lost cause" romanticization mythology in the vein of Gone with the Wind.)

And I understand people who just do not feel like reading about a character like that and dismiss any type of sympathy for him. Especially when it comes to talking like that about him, that comes from some book fans.

Again, I don't feel I can declare one way or another whether Anne Rice herself was racist. Like, I only heard things here on Tumblr about the whole Paula Dean thing and her, so I don't know all the details of that. All I will say is that she had some ignorance about race and racial issues/history/imagery and her own inherent biases within that. But she also didn't strike me as someone completely unwilling to learn. I could be wrong about that, as that was my reading of her back in the late-90s and early 2000s, at least.

I mean, the fact that she wrote Akasha, who was an Egyptian Queen, as white shows that ignorance. However, Aaliyah's casting as Akasha was one of the only things Rice praised about the Queen of the Damned movie, specifically noting how, with Aaliyah's casting, many black fans of the books feel included in her world.

And I personally remember, around the late-90s or so, when she used to have a newsletter and actually talked about black fans asking her if she could include more black vampires and how she honestly didn't feel she had the knowledge or skill as a writer to really explore that topic of what might be a difference for a black person becoming a vampire than a white person.

And, again, just personally? I prefer it when a white writer can acknowledge that kind of ignorance they have and not try and write something that might (usually) just end up being offensive in the long run.

There are also book readers who are more knowledgeable than me that have legitimate issues with how she handled the few Southeast Asian characters in the VC, particularly the body-swapping plot with David Talbot and the body he got in the end.

Oh, and I can tell you outright both George R. R. Martin and Stephen King have been harshly criticized for some of the handling of race, and other things, in their stories. Though, again, this usually comes more from people who've only watched the adaptations of their books than have read the books in question, from what I've seen. Legitimately so when it comes to the difference between the ASOIAF books and the Game of Thrones tv show and how the show handled a lot of that stuff. (Don’t get me started, I still have . . . feelings.) (I've never read Colleen Hoover's work, so I can't comment on that.)

Anyway, I guess I'm saying yes, Anne Rice did have her racial ignorance, but that's what they were - ignorance. Not something done maliciously or with that intent, but things that still had some consequences because of her ignorance.

[mariacallous]

Sombreros, serapes and maracas, horrible pronunciations, jokes about Mexican stand-offs, and really strange-looking tacos — did the “Mexican Week” episode of “The Great British Baking Show” leave any stereotypical stone unturned? After a similar debacle with Season 11’s “Japanese Week,” the internationally beloved competition series — which streams on Netflix in the U.S. — apparently decided not to learn from its mistakes, and dove headlong into Mexican food. And since the competition is largely to determine who can create the best baked goods, many observers wondered, why were they attempting tacos, anyway?

Even before the episode dropped on Oct. 7, the promos featuring sombrero-wearing hosts Noel Fielding and Matt Lucas came under fire from social media commenters — largely from the U.S., where finding a good taco is not as difficult as in the U.K. — who were quick to weigh in on the show’s utter failure to try to understand more than the most obvious characteristics of Mexican food and culture. Even the English-language plural of the word cactus eluded one of the contestants — not to mention the woman whose absolutely wretched try at guacamole sounded more like “glakeemolo.”

“It’s not hard to learn to pronounce words correctly, even for a living muppet of a host,” wrote José Ralat, the Taco Editor of Texas Monthly magazine.

“Tacos, new one on me,” says one contestant, as they are given the assignment for the technical challenge of making tortillas from canned “yellow field corn” and adding steak, spicy refried beans, guacamole and pico de gallo to make some sort of gloppy pile of taco topped with rare meat. The difference between tacos and “torteellas” perplexes one chef while the other predictably worries, “I just hope my chili is not too hot!”

But Austin, Texas-based journalist Kate Sánchez tried to put the furor into perspective, noting “Don’t get me wrong it’s definitely racist but also DACA was deemed illegal and my community is being actively harmed by forces not on my TV so glocklymolo and ominous maraca shaking is at least the stuff I can laugh at.” However, she did admit that peeling an avocado like a potato constituted “an act of physical violence against my people.”

“Absolutely haunted by this week’s #GBBO, I will never get the image of Carole peeling an avocado like a potato out of my head,” agreed Twitter user @IWillLeaveNow.

“Bracing ourselves for a whole lot of cringe,” wrote German-based historian and teacher Daniel Salina Córdova, who also shared a bingo card featuring all the stereotypically Mexican tropes used on the show.

“Mexican week on the #GBBO is so cringingly racially and culturally insensitive I have to ask how it was approved,” wrote @kcrusher on Twitter.

Did the show decide it might be better to apologize for stereotypes that have created harmful images of Mexican people for years? No, it did not, it made a silly taco joke. Netflix did not respond to a request for comment.

[crazy-so-na-sega]

peggio, molto peggio dell'Inquisizione che perlopiù si limitava a cancellare il nome dell'autore, requisiva i testi, ma poi venivano conservati integrali nelle segrete dei monasteri...!!! (cit. L'inquisizione romana -A.Prosperi) ...maledetti decerebrati!