#some got disavowed for being bigoted

[softpastelqueer]

I really wish third party voters would do more research on the two largest 3rd party parties we have, that being the libertarians and the greens

Everyone knows the dumpster fire that is the libertarian movement and party, but the Green Party has a lot of good policies and stances

They’re also the largest Leftist and Progressive party in the US

[butwhatifidothis]

Hi, I'm really sorry if this does come off sounding rude. I've followed your 3h content for a while now so I was around to see the drama with raxis and things like moonlitboar occur. It really does suck and I've seen a lot of toxic edelgard stans myself in the fandom. I do understand how raxis does tend to block evade thus making it a prolonged conflict with no easy end. But I can't help but feel that the discord screenshots you've posted have not helped in resolving the conflict. I don't think that you have been wrong about the culture of toxicity inside the discord but I feel that the discord screenshots may have escalated the conflict since now there are people there who are becoming very paranoid about about "spying" (which in itself a little bit of a grey area because it is a public discord) . But I think that paranoia in the discord now has the potential to turn really ugly and further radicalize more people in the discord. And because there are some neutral people in that discord who do seem to want to just block and ignore/tired of some arguments, I think that an end to the discord screenshots would keep them from being swayed by the paranoia/ a sign of good faith. I really don't think that you are in the wrong when it comes to this whole thing with raxis. I think that raxis's actions and behavior do deserve to be called out in the past and present. But I just feel like trying to call out one person is one thing but a whole discord is just a very huge and impossible challenge. I think that the discord is just best left ignored as these people have clearly made it clear that they really don't want to be reasoned with or want to change and I think that they are getting really dangerous. I really do hope this doesn't come off as both sides are bad because I do believe that this problem has always originated from Raxis. Sorry this got so long and I really do wish you all the best.

It's no problem; I understand where you're coming from.

What I feel about it is this: people from outside the server did not know the depths this server was sinking into. Leaving them alone as we have been would have resulted in them continuing to go on as though everything was fine as long as they confined their rhetoric to a certain spot; I feel it's important to remind people that that is not true, as that would only isolate the problem while doing nothing to actually rectify it or stop it from getting worse (even though this of course isn't going to magically cure everything either, to be clear).

Even well before I posted these specific screenshots, they were paranoid about the entire fandom "persecuting and targeting" them for "no reason," they were paranoid about how everyone is "out to get" Edelgard in FE's general fandom spaces, they were paranoid that every single other person who ever criticizes them is some form of evil bigot (which would normally be a bit of an exaggeration, if it wasn't for them genuinely saying this every single time something like this happens); at worst, this will just be used as yet another scapegoat to continue their self-fulfilling prophecy of being generally disliked in the fandom. At best, this warns people about what's been going on - a miracle could even happen and some of the people in the server can see what the higher ups in their server have been letting slide and leave.

I called out Raxis because of the harm he was (and, frankly, still is) doing to others, and I am doing the same to the Edelgang discord because of the harm their mods have either allowed to happened or have outright participated in themselves. Given the general consensus of people from the outside's reactions (that being shock and/or disgust), I think it's ultimately important to warn people of harmful actors and the rhetoric they spread.

Especially given how they responded. If there was any sign of remorse for what was done - Shandale disavowing their previous beliefs, or if that didn't happen them getting unmodded/banned/some sort of action done from the mod team, or even just some pushback from the general members (something they were more than ready to do in defense of Raxis, and something they were willing to do when these sentiments were first said) - I would have been more than ready to delete the screenshots and apologize for showing them. But their defense of it - that it was "taken out of context," as though what was said could ever be alright to say, as though they do in fact stand by them - shows the importance of calling this behavior out.

They do not think it was that bad. They think these sentiments are okay to have, as long as they are in the "right context." And I don't think it's okay for people to not know that given how dangerous the rhetoric is

[kitkatopinions]

Just so we're clear, anyone who starts defending the Faunus racism/White Fang/ and yes Adam too plots in RWBY is an idiot who is so obsessed with wanting RWBY to be perfect that they're willing to reject morals to do so.

Like be so fucking for real, Miles and Kerry themselves were like "yeah we're stupid white guys who didn't know what we were doing and got it wrong" and I'm sitting here thinking about how that dismissive attitude feels like weaponized incompetence to dismiss the straight up propaganda in their story, and the fact that they still seem to have not actually done research into how to respectfully handle the racism allegory they never should have inserted in the first place resulting in them continuing to fuck it up (hello 'faunus are not human' rearing its head again in volume 9,)... But they at the very least admit that they did get things wrong!

Some anti-rwders out there are so vile that the most they'll do is be like "oh yeah, it wasn't perfect, but-" which is a) so fucking vague and for what? Be specific, and b) it's always directly followed by them defending pretty much everything! The White Fang being a terrorist group? They'll defend it. Us not seeing any other group fighting for Faunus civil rights? They'll defend it. The fact that we also don't see anti-faunus terrorist groups? They'll defend it. The fact that the majority of the 'Faunus racism' B-plot was spent fighting Faunus who protested wrong? They'll defend it. The fact that the 'better' leader than Adam got five minutes of screentime before being murdered while seemingly all of the rest of the White Fang were more interested in following Adam until he turned on them? They'll defend it. The fact that even before Sienna was murdered, the only good Faunus we got the time to know completely disavowed her ways and rejected the White Fang as too violent prior to Adam escalating things like Sun and the Belladonnas? They'll defend it. The fact that the only time we see any one of our main characters actually engaging in protesting for and fighting for Faunus rights as anything but 'telling off one mean bigot' is a two second still of a child Blake at a rally? They'll defend it! The fact that season five in particular included the self-proclaimed white writers and the white VA for Blake having her lecture the other Faunus about how they need to take accountability for faunus-on-faunus crime and then go help the oppressor class before the Faunus rights group blew up a school by calling the police on said Faunus rights group? They'll defend it! The fact that the very first thing we hear about the White Fang is that they disrupted a peaceful protest? They'll defend it. The fact that explicitely stated in the show, peaceful protest WAS NOT working, and the methods of Sienna Kahn WERE, but every single good Faunus character we got to see for more than a moment insisted on peaceful protest only still (and yes I'm including Ilia because part of her 'redemption' involved going completely to the Belladonna way,) Yep they'll defend it. The fact that we only have one (1!!) faunus main character in the main hero group and she is also one of the most privileged people among the Faunus as well as someone who can hide their identity? They'll defend it. The fact that the majority of the evil Faunus we see besides Adam are dark skinned, while Blake is pale as death and they even lightened Sun's skin? They'll defend it! The fact that the only named Faunus in the White Fang I can think of that isn't dark skinned is also a disabled man (Adam definitely can't see out of his injured eye) who was branded like cattle in a horrific attack in his younger years? They'll defend it! The fact that the (again, self proclaimed white guy) writers of Rwby wrote it into their story that Adam was branded like cattle and yet gave that fact no nuance or attention and exposed the seal of Weiss's family company BRANDED INTO THE SKIN OF AN IN-UNIVERSE MINORITY right before he was literally KILLED and didn't seem to think it was any sort of important? They'll defend it.

The fact that the rwby writers wrote for white rich billionaire princess Weiss to be incredibly anti-Faunus towards Blake only to not show Weiss actually apologizing for her behavior and start doing the work to deconstruct her bigotry, and instead wrote that arc to involve Weiss proclaiming herself a victim and not having that protested and ending it with Weiss going from wanting to call the police on Blake to her 'graciously' forgiving Blake for being part of a not-entirely-peaceful civil rights group? They'll sure as heck defend their Best Girl! The fact that Yang led Blake around with a laser pointer, while Ruby made comments about Blake liking tuna a lot and how Ruby could explain away Blake's actions by assuring Weiss that Blake's kitty ears are cute and Weiss apparently told Team JNPR about Blake being a Faunus without Blake's permission or knowledge? They'll definitely defend that (especially Yang!) The fact that while Cardin is assaulting Velvet and targeting her for her faunus traits, none of the non-faunus mains step in to help her and his anti-faunus behavior never was brushed aside to focus on Jaune's stupid arc? They'll defend that. The fact that the faunus are labeled 'NOT HUMAN?' They'll defend that!

People need to stop defending it. The rwby writers fucked up, their racism allegory was horribly done and honestly hasn't gotten much better, and I think anyone who actually has the gall to defend it and try to twist it all into rainbows and sunshine so they can keep pretending like they don't like a show that's problematic is just awful. Like, the hypocrisy of people being like "if you take issue with how Adam was treated in rwby, then you are just defending a white man" and then turning around and defending the real life white men who ADMIT THEMSELVES that they fucked up.

Criticizing the writing of rwby doesn't equal defending Adam the character for the actions he was written to do. Adam the character sucks both as a person and as a character because the rwby writers can't even write a hatesink well.

But actively trying to dispute and getting angry at every single ounce of criticism that the rwby writers receive no matter how deserved actually DOES equal defending Miles and Kerry, two self-proclaimed white men who actually exist in real life. Funny how people keep on pretending that rwde posters are the ones defending men, when the majority of the posts I see will fully admit that Adam is a horrible abusive bastard (I blocked the one loser who I've seen here trying to dispute that,) but anti-rwdes themselves are the ones desperately trying to pretend that Miles and Kerry haven't ever done anything wrong.

[ragecndybars]

NGL I've been pretty steamed lately over how people feel this need to align every character they like with their own morals.

In broader fandom spaces, I see such widespread refusal to give any character a flaw which contrasts too strongly with the fan's sensibilities. Murderers are fair game, for example, because that's not something which personally impacts the fan, but someone being a little sexist, or needing to have XYZ queer identity explained to them instead of instantly recognizing and understanding the term, or even just asking a slightly insensitive question? That will suddenly get fans all up in arms accusing you of slandering the character in question.

Like, I'll write a fic or do a silly little edit where one character will say something ignorant or insensitive, or even just clearly showing that they're a little confused but they got the spirit (ie. that "His pronouns are they/them!!!" meme), and people will suddenly drop into my replies steaming out the ears because "THAT CHARACTER WOULD NOT SAY THAT!!!" As if I'm personally breaking into their house and calling them transphobic because I said their favorite character would mess up someone's pronouns by accident.

It feels very much related to the trend of taking characters and injecting them with an insane level of emotional maturity, such that they no longer resemble their initial character at all. Much has been said about fanfictions where every character talks like a therapist, but at least in those fics, it's usually just written that way because the author finds it satisfying, not because they think the characters have to be flawless communicators or else they're shitty people. At least, that's the vibe I usually get. But I feel like for at least several years, it's been completely taboo to even imply that a character might have some biases to work through -- even if said biases are clearly evident in the source material!! A character can say some truly horrific homophobic shit in their source material, but if you write a fic where they say "Dude, that's gay" suddenly you're a character assassin.

I dunno. I feel like I could tie this into a larger point about the reemerging obsession with a mythical "moral purity" and frantic disavowal of anything which taints that for fear of being seen as One Of The Bad Guys, but I think the biggest thing is just... acknowledging that characters can have flaws. Flaws that go beyond "a little obnoxious", and into the territory of "genuinely thoughtless in a way which can hurt people". Flaws which may actually make you uncomfortable, because people with those flaws may have been callous, cruel, or even outright abusive to you in real life. Those flaws can exist within fictional characters who are good and kind people, and it doesn't mean the character is being mischaracterized as shitty bigots. Because nice, good people can still have prejudices and biases -- or, hell, just be a little awkward or misspeak! (See again the "his pronouns are they/them" meme -- do we not all agree that the joke there isn't "X character is transphobic", it's "X character is trying so hard to be an ally but has no idea what they're doing"?)

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying you have to be "realistic" by writing characters you like as prejudiced or rude. If you wanna write your characters as completely accepting of every queer thing under the sun, do that! Do it regardless of "realism" or whatever the hell, and fuck anyone who tells you otherwise!!! But if someone else does examine the prejudices or rudeness of those characters, you can NOT be out here taking it personally, or extrapolating from that to decide that the author is prejudiced.

and if you can't stand to see characters you love being written as such?

block the author and move tf on with your life.

[todayisafridaynight]

SORRY SEEING HITOSHI OZAWA REMINDED ME pleeeeeeease please please please if you never take any of my recs again (<- being dramatic) PLEASE watch The Clan's Heir is a Trans Woman at some point... it is, as the title says, about a trans woman who's the successor to a yakuza family... it's got overwhelmingly positive reviews and it IS fucking incredible I'm not over it...

But Here's Why It's Worth A Watch Specifically As An RGG Fan:

Written and directed by Ozawa (he killed it on both counts)

Stars multiple RGG FCs (listing with who they played for convenience): Obviously Ozawa himself (Kuze in Y0), Hideo Nakano (Shibusawa in Y0), Yoshiyuki Yamaguchi (Tsuruno in Gaiden), and Yasukaze Motomiya (Shishido in Gaiden)

According to Motomiya, this basically came about as a bunch of trans-positive actors getting together to support Ozawa's project. For me that was a big deal because pretty much the entire cast is incredibly prolific in V-Cinema (direct-to-video action movies; I think direct-to-video has a negative connotation in the West but I don't think that's the case in Japan). Half the OG and Neo V-Cine Four Kings star in this movie, and all of them have starred in RGG at this point, so if nothing else I was pleasantly surprised to not have to disavow several of my favorite actors for this movie...

Also in the same article as Motomiya's comment, Nakano (who plays a detective) said he wished he got to play a trans woman so he "wouldn't have to craft a role." OK queen <3

Tonally just very RGG with how it blends spectacle and comedy and hard-hitting drama sometimes back-to-back... some of the themes and writing choices definitely struck me as RGG as well despite this coming out before Ozawa's involvement... lmao... I thiiiiink there's also a pretty overt reference in the climactic scene to Kiryu's iconic Step The Fuck Up line to look forward to :)

The Cartoonishly Bigoted Villain played by Motomiya kept reminding me of Mine and Aoki for some reason?? Maybe it was his Mine-stache and costuming and how lame his lines are. Maybe it was the way he runs his clan. Anyway it was funny To Me because I HC both of them as trans

Many opportunities to hallucinate about transfem Arakawa!

That is all... I rest my case... I will say obviously transphobia and homophobia (on the part of the characters) are Constants 'cause a lot of it's about portraying bigotry and acceptance on an individual level + the subs kinda go overboard on the slurs... so I can get if it'd be tiring or something... but yeah... good movie...

You had me at Simply Recommending Something LMAO DONT WORRY ill check it when i can :]

[rantingfeminist]

Shoe0nhead and the anti-pedophilia content

Finally, I have made a tumblr account and I can make long form posts instead of my famous 500 tweet threads. Shoe0nhead gets in a fair bit of trouble from progressives, sometimes I agree with the criticisms, other times I might half agree, when it comes to the anti-pedo content I have a bit of a different take on this. What I see a lot of twitter users saying is that Shoe0nhead is deliberately promoting an idea that LGBT people are weird with kids or pedos, but I don't really think this is some intentional thing on her end. I would agree that a lot of people in her audience are right wing and do hold these bigoted views about the LGBT and there have been times she has signal boosted stories that fed their narratives.

If you personally find this enough to make you dislike Shoe0nhead, wary of her, or just not want to have anything to do with her then I can understand how you feel that way and I personally think there's not much point in me trying to convince you otherwise if you feel so strongly. The motivation behind what Shoe is doing is she will see something weird around drag queens or gay people and children, then will see some of the weird people on twitter defending said thing or won't see anyone calling it out from a left progressive perspective and will feel like it's best for us to stand up and say "No, this is wrong, we don't agree with this" basically to disavow whatever it is.

The problem is that in doing this denunciation, she will bring more eyes onto whatever the weird thing is and this will further spread a narrative in the eyes of some that gay people are weird around kids. We would all like to believe we are rational and hold our views for rational, well thought out reasons, but the truth is sadly that most of us will take on views based on drawing connections that might not even really exist.

How we come to believe what we do and the role of social media

As an example on the left, we will see plenty of videos shared of police brutality incidents and this has shaped how we view police. While I would argue there's far more empirical evidence for beliefs around police violence, the evidence that convinces most people isn't studies or reading full articles, but usually headlines and videos on social media. We may have come to a correct conclusion based on limited evidence, but what got a lot of us here was the same flawed way people end up in the bigoted camp.

What trends on the right tends to be videos of gay people being weird around kids, feel good videos about troops and cops, videos of random violence from POC and other things that will feed their narrative. While outside these bubbles we can transparently see these videos for what they are, propaganda, if you are seeing enough of these videos it is easy for it to shape how you see various groups. If the majority of what you see of black people is random videos of people being violent, it would make sense that your perceptions of black people would become more negative over time.

I'd love to believe that most people become left wing by being educated, looking at the facts, and based on the empirical research, but reality is far stupider than that. In reality most of these people came to the correct conclusion by hearing others vaguely gesture towards research and by seeing a handful of videos. We aren't paragons of logic and reason and it's silly to think any political side is. It's important to be aware of our biases so that we don't spread misinformation that happens to reinforce a world view.

RE: Shoe0nhead promoting a narrative

I realistically can not deny that Shoe0nhead has been at times useful to the right in disseminating things that further their goals and narrative. If this alone is enough to make you dislike her then I am not personally going to try to convince you that you can't or your feelings aren't valid. I can understand why people are upset. I only disagree about her motivations. If you find her motivations irrelevant then that's up to your judgement and I respect your choice to avoid who you want or like/dislike who you want.

My belief is that her social circles and timeline is full of a lot of right wing propaganda and people who will show her some of the worst examples of LGBT people that exist. I personally have had friends who were right leaning who would share me similar stuff about children doing drag shows at gay nightclubs and while that is certainly strange and no nightclub is a child appropriate place (not even mentioning the time being far too late for a child or the conflicts of interest around the parents making money from their child etc), I never posted about this stuff because I feel like the attention it gets is highly selective. When LGBT people are a bit weird around kids it gets disproportionate attention from the right and if you do take part in talking about it, there's a risk of promoting a connection where there isn't one.

We have entire TV shows like dance moms and about child pageants that while criticised don't get the same level of ire as one off out of context 20s clips of drag performers near children. I say near children because even if the performer is avoiding the child or not facing the child, people will still be outraged. Personally, I think a lot of responsibility of parents to bring their children to child appropriate venues gets lost in the conversation and random drag queens are held accountable for some Karen deciding to bring their kids to a drag show advertised or designed for adults.

The dilemma around the silence

The thing a lot of conservatives will say about all of this stuff is that THE LEFT is silent on this because we are fine with pedophiles or we are trying to cover up some kind of gay sex abuse cult. I believe personally that shoe0nhead is trying to counter that narrative, but I don't totally agree with her choice to engage because I don't think these people will ever change their views and instead she will just be in the box of "one of the good ones" while the rest of us progressives will be seen as complicit in some kind of abuse thing.

The problem here is that there is a genuine reticence on the left to call out weird sexualisation around children when it is LGBT people, but this isn't really because of us. It's because the right is so desperate to paint all lefties as permissive of pedophilia or make a connection between gay people and pedophilia that we don't want to ever concede anything. If we concede that some gay people are a bit weird around kids or that some drag shows are age inappropriate, I do think there's absolutely a risk of the right taking that and applying it to everything that offends their delicate sensibilities.

I can sometimes concede too much to the right by being good faith, but the problem with this is that it alienates people on my side and rhetorically looks bad for my side. I think that Shoe0nhead is a good person and not homophobic, but she's making a rhetorical error of conceding too much to the right or unintentionally supporting their narratives at times by basically buying in to the idea of their respectability politics bullshit. There are individual random right wingers who will gain respect for her, as a person for her "telling it like it is", but ultimately it doesn't do much to actually influence their views or push them away from thinking of LGBT people as predators and so I would agree with certain criticisms of Shoe, but I don't believe she is a malicious actor in all of this and treating her as such only pushes her away and makes us look bad.

For me, my criticisms of shoe0nhead aren't about thinking she's a bad faith actor or malicious, but I do think rhetorically this is not effective left wing activism. She doesn't really seem to consider herself an activist and I get that. I think that in order to concede the points about the weird examples of LGBT people being sexual around children, we need to also call out the right for being over reactive to gay people just being around children. The issue with these concessions being in a vacuum is that they hear "This dude in a g-string shouldn't be dancing in front of kids" and take from it "These people as a group shouldn't be around kids". Nothing challenges their inherent biases that gay people don't act like this generally.

Rhetorically concession can be an effective tool, but if you do it too much you are basically taking Ls constantly and doing nothing to actually challenge their views or narratives. What I would suggest is that shoe balances these takes by also pointing out the many times where right wingers spread misinformation about the LGBT, the times LGBT people are doxed merely for existing, being teachers and so on. Calling out the weird stuff from random LGBT people is fine in a vacuum, but it really has to be balanced within the context of the full situation or else you are just going to end up promoting one side of this situation, whether you intend to or not.

I agree with a chunk of the criticisms of Shoe, but I will not pretend she's a far right Qanon grifter because I don't believe that's the truth of the situation. I think she sees what she is doing as a PR move for the left and breaking the silence on these issues, to show being on the left doesn't mean you have to defend some genuinely weird shit around kids (because with enough people, there's bound to be at least a couple being weird.)

[aronarchy]

A few years ago, I spent a considerable amount of time engaging with folks in the Slate Star Codex community. I can confirm that Scott Alexander Siskind attracts a lot of fascists, racists, & bigots. I learned about contemporary scientific racism in part because SSC fans *kept on* bringing it up & I wanted to refute them. Siskind maintained distance from the more openly oppressive & offensive followers. But it’s got to be more than coincidence. As others are emphasizing, the fandom scene around Siskind is a major pipeline of fascist & eugenicist recruitment. I tried to humanize social justice warriors to SSC folks & argue against the oppressive narratives popular among them in shared rationalist terms. While the experience was always intellectually simulating, I eventually moved away from that approach. As pleasant as aspects of SSC culture are, the persistent prominence of fascism & eugenics ultimately says the most about the project.

I hope Siskind’s current notoriety doesn’t lead more people down the recruitment pipeline. I might quibble about certain details, but overall I support the negative attention Siskind & SSC are getting.

I still intend to write a longer piece aimed at Slate Star Codex types that argues disability radicalism makes the focus on IQ & so on irrelevant.

Yes, humans differ & society only accommodates specific minds & bodies.

Yes, people lie about this & refuse to accept reality.

The solution ain’t to double down on selection, but rather to create environments where all feeling beings can thrive.

The IQ debate highlights the utter hegemony of meritocracy. It’s an overwhelmingly intra-eugenicist dispute where hardly anyone even acknowledges the underlying assumptions, much less challenges them.

Scientific racist: “Ability differs between populations, so fuck equality & fuck you.”

Liberal eugenicist: “No, ability only differs between individuals. Equality of opportunity facilitates selection.”

Mystical meritocrat: “It’s not about ability but the choice to work hard.”

Each of these jerks supports having some thrive while others languish, whether determined by the free market, the experts, bureaucrats, or what have you. They’re all eugenicists, including the mystical meritocrat who will never admit it.

Likewise, disavowals of IQ typically retain the concept of intelligence in normative terms & reinforce its social value: “Only idiots believe in IQ! (Implied: I am very smart!)”

Only communists take the relatively radical position of (theoretically) wanting everyone to have absolutely equal access to material nice [things] regardless of intelligence or ability of any sort. They rarely entertain notions of *social equality*, however.

.

[princessnijireiki]

smh ppl posting screenshots of azealia banks's instagram stories bc elon musk is gonna be on snl & she's clowning him + y'all just remembered the SAGA that went down when she was locked in his house w him and grimes...

but being like "oh hee hee I hate her she's so bad BUT this is soooooooo funny"

no, you a fan! you are a fan! you wouldn't have seen this otherwise, and I know that bc I'M following her on ig & even I don't have story notifications on for her like some of y'all must, or how some of the people you follow & source your content from must, so you can feel morally pure about circulating secondhand screen recordings & gifs!

just don't be a fucking coward! yes she's said an awful, awful lot of nasty, bigoted things. so has your mom. either: don't follow people or share the content of people you feel you gotta put a disclaimer on to disavowing any connection to them; or share it, let the jokes be funny, and explain as needed rather than using a disclaimer as an excuse to trot out the exact same old discourse every time you see her or her stuff, if every time you're going to insist on interacting regardless.

grow tf up. I'm not saying you have to love her. hate her if you fucking want, I don't care. but some of y'all have more leniency in your hearts towards politicians, former presidents, and war criminals than her, and y'all don't put a sassy little "the opinions expressed are not representative of this blog tee hee!" label on posts about them, either. some of y'all LITERALLY watch hetalia.

I'm not trying to hear shit from some of you all in general re: who's "cancelled" and who's not, but y'all out here effectively got her blocked and act like it's a morality issue, but reposting her shit for clout and also acting like you only saw it accidentally, incidentally, so no one thinks you actually *gasp* like-her like-her... please. it's giving clown behavior. it's giving greasepaint and squeaky shoes next to the lion cage, ringling brothers barnum & BAILEY. madagascar 3, afro circus ad spots. that's y'all. do fucking better.

commit to yourself, if nothing else. come up with a sense of identity strong enough that your online persona doesn't crumple upand blow away in the wind if you admit you enjoy the work of someone problematic without diminishing them or self flagellating over it.

[mumufic]

My ranty Author Notes to address questions on my Three Sisters fic

So, I feel like I should put up some notes on a number of recurring questions I get in the comments, for those who don’t really read my responses (because I do provide some detailed explanations for why certain things are happening in my fic, but I get it if sloughing through comments for insight isn’t your thing; it isn’t mine either, hence the A/N.)

Why is Lily so stupid / obtuse / blind about Snape? Let’s level-set a couple of things: A) Lily is about as Gryffindor as they come, and some of the more common character flaws of people who belong to that house is that they rather tend to think a lot less of situations before diving in. That’s the case for Lily in this fic. Snape was her first magical friend that she’d ever met. She cherishes that friendship because she knows it’s returned even though she might not agree with a lot of Snape’s beliefs, not to mention Snape was the first person who told her that all the strange things that have been happening to her was the result of her being magical. For a child feeling the otherness of her abilities so keenly around her perfectly normal, muggle working class family, that is a huge thing. For the first time, Lily thought she’d met someone who understood her and the things she could do, and for that to have happened to her as a child, the person who validates that part of her being is going to play a very central role in her life until she reaches a breaking point. In the books, that breaking point was when Snape’s bigotry included her. For the longest time, he’d always excluded her from his hateful rhetoric, and there’s passages in the books that support that. B) Lily is a kid. She’s 11, and she probably met Snape at a much younger age (I’m guessing around 8 or 9) Kids who value their friends can sometimes be stupidly loyal to them even when their friends are behaving badly. Why do you think peer pressure is such a huge thing among young people? It’s partly because they value the person who is their friend to the point of being foolhardy over said friend’s bad actions. C) A lot of Snape’s bigotry goes over Lily’s head, because she’s never been taught to find differences between magical and non-magical people. Her parents obviously love her and Petunia the same and for her, that means they’re no different. She doesn’t understand the superiority Snape feels over Petunia, and because she doesn’t understand it, and also because she’s just a stupid kid who doesn’t really know better or even understands the slurs that come out of Snape’s mouth, she doesn’t think too much of it. Notice that Lily actually does call him out when he’s being mean to Petunia in ways that she can understand, when Snape tells Petunia that he had no place being in Platform 9 3/4 for example. But then Snape follows it up with reasoning that seems to be perfectly sound - Platform 9 3/4 is a magical location; it might not be the best place for Petunia to be. As for the spoon encounter, Lily had some basic understanding of accidental magic, thanks to Holly, and mostly chocked up that unfortunate event to Snape’s accidental magic rearing up from Petunia’s mean-spirited taunting. Petunia isn’t innocent in that scene, if you go back to it and think critically on it, look at it in the eyes of a normal rational adult. She’s just presented as being sympathetic because the narration is from Holly’s POV, and Holly likes this Petunia and hates Snape absolutely. Lastly, pretty much everything I have on Snape during the Summer with the Evanses part of this story have a basis in canon. He was hateful to Petunia, but Lily constantly made excuses for him, thinking that he’s just mean in general because of his difficult family life. The same goes when they get to Hogwarts. Snape spouts the same bigoted things the Slytherin Purebloods say, and Lily makes excuses for him. That’s canon. Lily made excuses for Snape’s behavior to her sister and her friends (especially Mary, who was canonically muggleborn) until she found she couldn’t anymore because his hatefulness suddenly spilled over to include her. Does that make Lily stupid? Probably, yes. Does it make her human? Fucking hell yes, and anyone who thinks that they won’t behave that way have clearly never figured out conflicted love-hate relationships with toxic people, so good for you, but these things happen to others, and it shouldn’t be surprising. There’s a basis for this in reality, and there’s a basis for Lily’s blind loyalty to Snape in canon.  And barring all of that if you don’t agree, it’s my fic, and I choose to write her this way. If that makes her a stupid character and you think I’m assassinating Lily’s characterization from canon, your interpretation is valid, but so is my right to write what I want as long as I’m not making a cent off of this. Thanks.

Why is Sirius spouting the bigotry he vehemently disavowed in OoTP? And why did he call Holly a mudblood? I don’t know about you, but I think Sirius had to have been an extremely sheltered child, growing up in a magical house surrounded on all sides by a muggle neighborhood. I think he started questioning why he wasn’t allowed to play with other children whom he could probably see from his bedroom window, but he didn’t actually know how and why he needed to reason it out with his parents until he met people who taught him how to articulate the feelings he had over his parents’ bigotry against muggles and muggleborns. As for why he called Holly a mudblood, again, has a lot to do with the normalization of hate in the household he grew up in. Walburga and Orion Black taught their children to hate anything and anyone that didn’t subscribe to the same Pureblood rhetoric as they did. And since Sirius thought Holly lived with the Evanses, who were muggle, and not with the Potters who were Purebloods, he didn’t see a distinction for her blood status from Mary or Lily, who were actually muggleborn. Hell, I don’t even think Sirius understood blood status all that well at all as an 11-year-old. He was just repeating shit he heard his parents say because he didn’t know any better. I’m not going to tell you how to interpret your reading of my fic, but generally, I wouldn’t ascribe knowledge that I know of characters and events to the characters within the story, because they can’t be expected to know and understand what I know and understand, especially in a fic written in such a limited POV, and things like Holly’s blood status, would not be known to Sirius because Holly had never actually told James or him about her parents, other than that they were Potters. And while you can make a case for the fact that Holly told Sirius and Regulus in Chapter 7 that she’s not muggleborn, I still stand by the idea that the Black exclusionist ideas that Walburga and Orion taught their children would still have Sirius identifying her as one simply because of where he thinks she grew up in.

Why is Holly so stupidly letting so many details from her timeline out to her friends? I think we should all cut Holly some slack for spilling so many details about her life to Lily and Petunia. She’s an orphan who’ finally met the girl who would be her mother. She can’t shut up about her life because OMG my MUM! I finally got to meet her! On top of that, up until the point where Holly met Fleamont Potter, the last time Holly had been warned about meddling with time had been when she was in third year, and it was rushed and the warning hadn’t even been made to her; it had been McGonagall warning Hermione and Hermione repeating the same information to her. So the meddling about time? Holly didn’t exactly give a shit. Lastly, we have so many references in canon of Harry Potter being an exceptionally impulsive little blockhead to the point where he constantly gets himself into trouble. Running after the Philosopher’s Stone in PS, continuing on to fight the basilisk and look for Ginny while Ron tries to get help in CoS, haring off to the Ministry in OoTP, Sectumsempra in HBP, uttering Voldemort’s name and getting them caught by Snatchers in DH… the list is actually pretty damn long. So why should it not be a character flaw for Holly in this fic to be stupidly impulsive in the information she gives out to a person she thinks is her mother, one she’s loved and idolized and put on a pedestal all her life? Why shouldn’t she spout similarly incriminating information to a boy she knows would be her godfather, whom she trusted and loved up until he got killed? It’s a character flaw, yes, and I’m not here to write perfect characters, because perfect characters who only do the right and intelligent thing make for a dry, boring read. If you weren’t about annoying flaws like this, then you’re welcome to click off my fic and find some other story where Harry is the perfect godsent angel come to save us all. That’s not what this story is about.

Why aren’t you patching up any of these inconsistencies that multiple people have already pointed out? Some of them, because that is how I want to write the characters in my story. Some of them, because there will be points in the future where these things are addressed and resolved. And yet still some of them because I don’t want to. Yes, even the stupid ones that really don’t make sense and should probably be changed. I don’t want to go back and change them. That’s how I am as a fic writer, and last I checked, this is still my fanfic.

Want to have a say in how I’m planning the characterization and plotting out? I’m still looking for a beta who I’d like to be able to help me with things like plot inconsistencies, annoying characterization (ok, shut up about Lily already. I didn’t make her this stupid; JKR did when she wrote Lily insisting on her friendship with Snape all the way up to fifth year!), and just generally talk about how and where I intend for the story to go.

If you’d like to beta for me, hit me up on my main Tumblr, @mumuinc  or DM me on Discord; my profile is mumuinc#7662.

[safetypinkerton]

Hollywood Propaganda by Mark Dice 

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/hollywood-propaganda-mark-dice/1137833508

Christianity Under Attack

In order to destroy America, the conspirators are determined to eradicate faith in God and dismantle organized Christianity. Attacking Jesus and Christianity is a sacrament in Hollywood because the far-Left hates Jesus and everything He stands for. It’s not an overstatement to say that many in key positions of power in the entertainment industry (and politics) are Satanists who will someday openly embrace Lucifer as the rebel angel kicked out of Heaven for defying God.

  “I’m glad the Jews killed Christ,” ranted comedian Sarah Silverman in one of her comedy specials. “Good. I’d fucking do it again!” she declares, as her audience agrees in laughter.158 While accepting an Emmy Award one year Kathy Griffin said, “A lot of people come up here and they thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. He didn’t help me a bit…so all I can say is suck it Jesus! This award is my god now!”159

I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to make fun of Christians, but no mainstream celebrity would dare make such insults or jokes about Muhammad because Muslims (and Jews) are vigorously protected against any criticism or mockery and only wonderful things can be said about them. Even a slightly edgy joke ignites a barrage of attacks with cries of “Islamophobia” or “anti-Semitism” and gears start moving in the well-funded and massive smear machines like the ADL and the SPLC which quickly move to destroy the person’s career before they can utter another word.

Hating Christians is almost as necessary as believing in climate change if you’re going to be a mainstream Hollywood celebrity. There are very few open Christians in Hollywood, most of them are has-beens like Kevin Sorbo and Kirk Cameron who have been basically blacklisted since being open about their faith.

  Kevin Sorbo was banned from Comicon because he’s a conservative and “pals with Sean Hannity.”160 He and other Christian actors are stuck doing low budget films that get little attention. They’re allowed to exist (for now) as long as they never point out the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality. Only watered down and generic Christian messages are allowed to be said.

After Guardians of the Galaxy star Chris Pratt appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and happened to discuss his “spirituality,” many online began attacking him for being a Christian and attending a church. Actress Ellen Page (a lesbian) from the X-Men and Inception tweeted, “If you are a famous actor and you belong to an organization that hates a certain group of people, don’t be surprised if someone simply wonders why it’s not addressed. Being anti LGBTQ is wrong, there aren’t two sides. The damage it causes is severe. Full stop.”161

Singer Ellie Goulding threatened to back out of her scheduled performance at the 2019 Thanksgiving NFL halftime show if the Salvation Army didn’t pledge to donate money to LGBT causes. She got the idea after her Instagram comments were flooded with complaints from her fans because the Salvation Army was sponsoring the game to announce their annual Red Kettle Campaign (bell ringers) fundraiser for the homeless.162 Since the Salvation Army is a Christian charity, Goulding’s fans freaked out, accusing them of being “homophobic” and “transphobic.”

They quickly bowed to the pressure and “disavowed” any anti-LGBT beliefs, which basically means they’re disavowing the Bible because even the New Testament denounces homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 and 1st Corinthians 6:9-10. Many critics claim that only the Old Testament does, but the Book of Romans makes it clear that just because Jesus came to offer salvation doesn’t mean God’s law regarding homosexuality changed.

The Salvation Army also removed a “position statement” from their website that had made it clear “Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex,” and replaced it with one saying “We embrace people regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”163 One of the world’s largest Christian charities whose very name “The Salvation Army” refers to the salvation of Christ, cowardly bowed down to the Leftist activists out of fear they would be branded “homophobic.”

Christians are easy targets since they’re much more passive than Jews and Muslims when attacked, and Hollywood loves to stereotype them as a bunch of superstitious bigots who don’t know how to have fun. In the rare case that there is a movie favorable to Christianity that gets widespread distribution, that too is attacked.

Passion of the Christ was deemed “anti-Semitic” because it depicts the story of Jesus’ arrest, sham trial, and crucifixion.164 It was the most popular film about the events to be made and wasn’t a straight to DVD release like most others. With Mel Gibson behind it, the film became a huge success, which caused a tremendous backlash.

The ADL [Anti-Defamation League] denounced the film, saying it “continues its unambiguous portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus. There is no question in this film about who is responsible. At every single opportunity, Mr. Gibson’s film reinforces the notion that the Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob are the ones ultimately responsible for the Crucifixion.”165 That’s because that’s what happened!

Technically, the Romans did it, but at the behest of the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem at the time. The Bible makes it very clear what led to Jesus being crucified. Pontius Pilate is quoted in Matthew 27:24 saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” and “It is your responsibility!” meaning the Jewish Pharisees. They were the ones who conspired to have Jesus arrested and killed for “blasphemy” and being a “false” messiah. Pontius Pilate even offered to release Jesus, but the crowd demanded he release Barabbas instead, another man who was being detained for insurrection against Rome, and for murder.166

A critic for the New York Daily News called The Passion of the Christ, “the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of the Second World War.”167 Many others angrily denounced the film when it came out in 2004. Some in the media even blamed it for a supposed “upsurge” in anti-Semitic hate crimes.168

When the History Channel miniseries The Bible was released in 2013, the same cries of “anti-Semitism” rang out.169 The New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss went so far as to say that it’s a “conspiracy theory” that Jews killed Jesus.170

Even though most Christmas movies aren’t overtly Christian and instead focus of the importance of families reuniting and spending time together, that doesn’t mean they’re not going to come under attack. As the war on western culture continues, the Marxists have set their sights on Christmas too.

Online liberal cesspool Salon.com ran a headline reading “Hallmark movies are fascist propaganda,” and complained they promote “heteronormative whiteness” because there aren’t enough LGBT characters or people of color in them.171

“Hallmark movies, with their emphasis on returning home and the pleasures of the small, domestic life, also send a not-at-all subtle signal of disdain for cosmopolitanism and curiosity about the larger world,” Salon said, “which is exactly the sort of attitude that helps breed the kind of defensive White nationalism that we see growing in strength in the Donald Trump era.”172

The article went on to say that because the Hallmark Channel airs so many Christmas movies, it is promoting, “a set of patriarchal and authoritarian values that are more about White evangelicals defining themselves as an ethnic group, and not about a genuine feeling of spirituality…The very fact that they’re presented as harmless fluff makes it all the more insidious, the way they work to enforce very narrow, White, heteronormative, sexist, provincial ideas of what constitutes ‘normal.’”173

The article wasn’t satire. Salon.com has a deep-seated hatred of Christianity, conservatives and families, and is another cog in the Cultural Marxist machine working to destroy the United States.

Comedian Whitney Cummings was reported to the Human Resources department of a major Hollywood studio after she wished the crew of a TV show she was working on “Merry Christmas” when they wrapped up for the year. She made the revelation while speaking with Conan O’Brian the following December. “Last year, I was working on a TV show, [and] got in trouble with Human Resources for saying ‘Merry Christmas’ to an intern,” she began.174

Conan asked her if she was being serious and she said it was a true story, elaborating, “I was leaving, like on the 18th or whatever…and I was like, ‘Bye guys, Merry Christmas.’” When she returned from vacation after New Year’s she was called to HR and scolded. She joked, “I don’t even care how your Christmas was. It was just a formality. It’s what you say when you leave.”175

Conan O’Brien then replied, “In these times we’re in, that could trigger someone or offend them if it’s not their holiday.”176 She didn’t say which network it was, but she’s been involved with some major shows like NBC’s Whitney (where she played the main character), as well as the CBS sitcom 2 Broke Girls, which she created and was a writer for.

While today it may seem impossible that Christmas movies may become a thing of the past, nobody could have ever guessed that reruns of the classic Dukes of Hazzard would get banned after the Confederate flag was deemed a “hate symbol” in 2015, or that Aunt Jemima pancake syrup, Eskimo Pie ice cream bars, and Uncle Ben’s Rice would be deemed “racially insensitive” and pulled from production a few years later.177

Once someone reminds liberals that the word Christmas is derived from Christ’s Mass and that it is actually a commemoration of the birth of Jesus, they may finally go over the edge and deem Christmas just as offensive as Columbus Day or the Fourth of July. And with the Muslim and Sikh populations increasing in the United States, the American standard of Christmas music playing in shopping malls and retail stores all month long every December may one day come to an end because it’s not “inclusive” and leaves non-Christians feeling “ostracized.”

[ashandboneca]

Unsolicited Criticism

So a few years ago, I dealt with some criticism in my personal life over my choices. I’m a NB queer witch who is (not legally) married to two people. It was a bit of a thing, but it has ended my relationship with an extended family member. I had some other things happening in another sect of my more immediate family that I did not agree with, but I held my tongue (because it’s none of my business) which was kind of weird as well.

So I got to thinking, because I like to take things like people being assholes and turn it into a lesson that can apply to other people and other situations. There should be a way to turn something wretched into something you can learn from. It’s not about putting a positive spin on things - sometimes, things just suck and there is no turning that frown upside-down. It’s about taking the situation, removing the emotion from it, and using it as a blueprint for other, similar situations so you can have a plan for how to deal with these things that crop up in the future.

I thought it might be a good thing to talk about dealing with unsolicited criticism and opinions about your choices, your life, and your craft.

I really believe that the choices we make in this life are ours to make. I think too many people are willing to stick their noses into things they have no business being wrapped up in, and it causes more grief than it is worth. Everyone feels their opinion is valid, important, and needed. This is not always the case.

People should ask themselves these four questions before the open their mouths/type away on their keyboards:

- is it true?

- is it kind?

- is it needed?

- is it something I need to say?

Opinions or criticism should have some grain of truth to them. They should be constructive (aka kind). They should be necessary - and actually necessary, not just because you feel ‘it’s the right thing to say’, and it should be something that you feel you are required to impart to the party receiving it.

How do you know if it fulfills these simple requirements?

Firstly, and always, you need to look at where the criticism/opinion is coming from. Is it someone you trust, or whose opinion you value? Is it some random stranger? Why do you think they are saying what they are saying? Have you decided to become a drug mule or join a crime family, or did you just get your hair cut short or paint your bedroom? Most times, when these things are coming from trusted people, like family members, they are coming from a place of love. Most times. Because they are family, there is a certain expectation that their opinion carries more weight. When your old Christian aunt is telling you that you are going to hell because if your beliefs, it could be coming from a place of love. It could also be coming from a place of condescension. Maybe auntie thinks your beliefs are stupid, or silly, of that you aren’t capable of making your own decisions? The key is learning to interpret the tone of their concern, and act accordingly.

My old Catholic grandmother, gentle soul that she is, told me at 14 that I was going to hell because I would not get confirmed. It was so matter of fact, with not a lick of condescension. She merely said she would pray for me, hugged me, and we both moved on with our lives. It came from a place of love. Previous drama came from a place of condescension and foolishness, and it was rebuked.

Secondly, use your own critical thinking skills and judgement to determine if the criticism/opinion holds any merit. Sometimes people around us try to present us with situations that we may be otherwise blind to. Maybe you’re culturally appropriating something and it’s offensive to the people around you and to that group. Maybe something you present online or in person is actually super racist. Maybe your practice includes some manner of hurtful or harmful practice, and people are concerned for your wellbeing. Maybe you’re mentally ill, and off your meds, and people are concerned for you. We can’t always see things that are right in front of us, and sometimes it takes an outside observer to clue us into what we may be missing. There are valid points in being criticized - we often learn from it in a beneficial way if it is constructive and seeks to better you as a person. Hell, a large portion of my schooling was learning to take constructive criticism, which is super important as an artist who works commercially. Not everyone is going to like what you present, or agree with your own opinions.

Thirdly, you have to realize that you have every right to disagree or rebuke the criticism/opinion. If someone is disagreeing with how you are practicing, you have every right to tell them to go pound sand. Depending on the source, you should be able to decide how you want to act. It also depends on how forceful or backward the opinion is - if the person is family but is holding a bigoted and hurtful opinion, you have every right to disagree with what they are saying, and explain to them how they are incorrect. Opinions are not factual - they are not immovable, or static. They are moveable and should be ever evolving. If they then refuse to alter their opinion, and choose to continue to hold a hurtful viewpoint - for example, they’re racist, homophobic, bigoted, sizeist, etc - you can make the choice to be willing to accept that as a part of who they choose to be, or move on in life without them.

Now, I have a pretty strict policy on just cutting people out of my life. Part of that reason being I spent a large portion of my life being a doormat and letting people treat me poorly. I decided a long time ago that life was better spent with those who can respect me and love me rather than out of obligation. Life is too short for bullshit. I know I am a good person who deserves to be treated with the dignity and respect I seek to treat others with. I will not lower my standards to expect any less. Second chances are given, but if someone wounds me badly enough, no amount of 'I’m sorry’ is gonna cut it. I can always forgive, but I have the memory of an elephant and I will never forget.  (Short version: I know I’m a good person, and if you treat me like crap I will cut you.) 

How you choose to proceed is your choice. Always know that as an adult, you have the choice to have a relationship of your choosing with family or friends. Some families suck, some people have had abusive upbringings or have been kicked out by parents, and it’s not feasible to maintain a relationship. There is no obligation - no one owes anyone anything. You owe your parents nothing - the gratitude for bringing you into the world and raising you is fine, but that was a choice they made in having you. Realizing that is liberating, and can also set you up to address issues and problems that could be hurting your relationship with family. It can help to form real and lasting bonds built on mutual respect and equal footing. The same goes with friends - they are people you choose to surround yourself with. How and what relationship you choose to have with them is just that - your choice. The quote 'the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb’ comes to mind - we often build secondary families outside of our blood relations who we often have stronger bonds with because we can choose those people based on their merits and that they closely align with our own sensibilities. I have relatives that are crazy conservative, pro-life nut jobs, I have an aunt who physically and emotionally abused me as a child. I actively make the choice to disavow those people because we have no common ground to stand on - we are so vastly different there is no way to reconcile it. We are blood, but we are not family, if you get what I’m saying.

I should also point out that not every opinion should be aired. Sometimes, there are things you just need to keep to yourself. Yeah, okay, Susie’s hair does look like it was cut with a weed whacker, but telling her that will only hurt her and serves no purpose other than to be judgemental - maybe Susie likes her hair like that. Assuming you know better than Susie makes you a dick, because Susie is her own person and can do whatever she goddamn pleases with her hair. Maybe Joe’s altar looks tacky and cheap - still not your place to comment, because that’s Joe’s space and has nothing to do with you. Unless it involves the serious well being of someone or involves you directly, it may serve better to keep your opinions to yourself.

In the case of this criticism coming from an outside, anonymous source - I normally evaluate it, but often ignore it. It is hard to make personal judgements on someone without knowing who they are. If the person is actually making a really good point, even if it contrary to how I feel, I will take it under consideration and use my critical thinking to evaluate its usefulness. I try to approach all of my problems in a logical, matter-of-fact way. I often try and put myself in someone else’s shoes  - like if I was an outside observer in the situation, how would I react? If you remove the emotion from the situation, and look at the words said and the intention behind them, you can get a fairly clear sense of what you should do.

I’m not advocating cut and run - not even remotely. I am advocating personal choice, and telling you that if you are an adult, it is okay to make that choice if it is better for your wellbeing overall. Don’t keep people around out of obligation - it serves neither of you any purpose, and just builds resentment. It breeds guilt and doubt. Cut the ties, move on, and maybe someday you can get to a point of reconciliation and trust again - people grow and change as life and circumstances change.

When you are expressing your own opinions, remember those four points - is it true, kind, needed, and are you the vehicle to impart it? It makes conversations and discussions a lot more functional, that’s for sure. Anything that can make socially awkward people communicate effectively deserves a high five or self five.

[golbatgender]

@failure-artist replied to your post “You know the “Chinese room” linguistics experiment? I think anti...”

What is the Chinese room?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

Against "strong AI," Searle (1980a) asks you to imagine yourself a monolingual English speaker "locked in a room, and given a large batch of Chinese writing" plus "a second batch of Chinese script" and "a set of rules" in English "for correlating the second batch with the first batch." The rules "correlate one set of formal symbols  with another set of formal symbols"; "formal" (or "syntactic")  meaning you "can identify the symbols entirely by their shapes." A third batch of Chinese symbols and more instructions in English enable you "to correlate elements of this third batch with elements of the first two batches" and instruct you, thereby, "to give back certain sorts of Chinese symbols with certain sorts of shapes in response." Those giving you the symbols "call the first batch 'a script' [a data structure with natural language processing applications], "they call the second batch 'a story', and they call the third batch 'questions'; the symbols you give back "they call ... 'answers to the questions'"; "the set of rules in English...they call 'the program'": you yourself know none of this. Nevertheless, you "get so good at following the instructions" that "from the point of view of someone outside the room" your responses are "absolutely indistinguishable from those of Chinese speakers." Just by looking at your answers, nobody can tell you "don't speak a word of Chinese." Producing answers "by manipulating uninterpreted formal symbols," it seems "[a]s far as the Chinese is concerned," you "simply behave like a computer"; specifically, like a computer running Schank and Abelson's (1977) "Script Applier Mechanism" story understanding program (SAM), which Searle's takes for his example.

But in imagining himself to be the person in the room, Searle thinks it's "quite obvious...I do not understand a word of the Chinese stories. I have inputs and outputs that are indistinguishable from those of the native Chinese speaker, and I can have any formal program you like, but I still understand nothing."

So essentially, REGs follow authorities who dictate what they are supposed to believe and what they are supposed to hate. They are given symbols--discourse buzzwords--and are told to produce outputs such as “good,” “bad,” and “pee your pants” in response to certain sets of buzzwords. However, most REGs don’t actually know what most of the buzzwords mean, only how to recognize them and choose the “correct” output. If you force them beyond the limitations of the input-output script, they lose the artificial coherence of the Chinese Room and start outputting word salad. A good example of an anti doing this is this post. They seem to just look for keywords, disregard the actual content of what the other person is saying, and then spit out a pre-prepared, insulting response based on just those keywords.

I mean, given the homogeneity of that school of “thought,” it’s not really surprise. Do you need to know what “pedophilia” or “ddlg” mean if the only thing you are allowed to express without facing persecution from your “friend” group is some syntactic variant of “Ddlg is pedophilia and fetishizing childhood!” or “If you ship ___ you’re supporting pedophilia!”? Do you need to know what “fetishization” is or whether straight women are actually doing it or writing the majority of m/m slash if you aren’t socially allowed to have any opinion on the subject other than “Fujoshis are homophobic and fetishizing mlm by writing fetishy fic about them for female consumption”? Do you need to know what cishets, asexuals, queer/lgbt resources, taxonomy, or the state of those things in the real world are if the Smart Multiply Oppressed People you look up to are so absolutely certain that “Homophobic cishet asexuals are invading lgbt spaces and stealing resources” or that “Asexuality is white supremacist and colonialist because it taxonomizes sexuality”?

No, you don’t. You repeat the Safe Opinions that these people give you, because if you have an opinion of your own and it accidentally contradicts that (or can be perceived to do so) in any way, or if your glorious leader chances to disagree for unrelated reasons, you are now the target of the same righteous wrath you have been dishing out on others, and you will deserve it. And you’d better pray that you’re not interested in something or part of a group that will be deemed problematic for whatever valid-sounding reason tomorrow, or you’ll suddenly be on the outside all the same no matter how well you have behaved up till this point--though most REGs don’t see that far ahead. They see their leaders as people fighting injustice, not people who just want to fight something, anything, and are looking for any slipshod excuse to have a reason to and get praised for it. They think that as long as they are Good they will be safe, and don’t yet realize that under this system there is no such thing as absolute good or bad, but only what their leader currently likes/tolerates or dislikes, and that that can change at any moment.

It’s a horrifyingly abusive system. Because it relies on a specific type of abuser to work--a well-spoken, demographically oppressed person who frames themself as progressive and fighting bigotry, and who indeed often does start out fighting real oppression (such as misogyny, racism, or homophobia) and having real insights into that oppression, and who almost always believes their own arguments and projected image--and also on a crowd of lackey enforcers of varying degrees of awareness and complicity, even survivors of past abuse are often vulnerable to these systems and become convinced that the head abuser(s) know better and are right. After all, they’re marginalized/survivors themselves, more than you are, always somehow more than you are, and they keep coming up with insights you’d never have figured out on your own.

(And the reason you wouldn’t have is often simply that they’re illogical, untrue, or just make no sense, but it would be bigoted to question them, you’ve been taught. These kinds of abusers have turned the very good strategy of “Believe the experiences of victims and marginalized people; don’t say they’re lying about it” into the now alarmingly prevalent idea that “disagreeing with someone who’s a victim or more marginalized than you about anything, especially anything even tangentially related to what they’ve gone through, or even something completely unrelated to their past or marginalization, is bigoted.” Put simply, “the most oppressed person in the room must be right.” Like being oppressed makes you an expert, instead of simply giving a little more insight. Ironically, REGs turn themselves into the very thing that anti-SJWs stereotype activists as!)

This type of abuser identifies as an inherently good person, and because of that thinks that anything that confuses, scares, or disgusts them is bad. They have no separation of action from identification; just as they think that their being good makes them inherently good, they think that doing anything they deem bad makes someone inherently bad, and therefore a target. Moreover, when they see something that claims a difference between identification and action, and the action applies to them but they don’t like the identification, their response is to say either that the identification doesn’t exist, if the perceived conflict applies to the outgroup, or that the identification is wrong if the conflict applies to self/ingroup identity. (E.G. thinking that asexuals who choose to have sex must not really be asexual, because they’re doing the same thing as non-asexual people, completely ignoring their reasons or what they feel; being told that telling people to kill themselves is bad, and deciding that it must not be bad because they’re doing it so therefore it must be good). Their rhetoric oscillates between loaded emotional appeals and paragraphs of dense theory with provocative, soundbite conclusions; they are very good at justification, and attempts to disagree with them will end in gaslighting. If they can’t convince you that their argument is right, then they will try to convince you that asking to have boundaries respected is ableist, or that trying to disagree with them in the first place is racist or homophobic, or that they’re inherently more oppressed than you are and so therefore their opinion is more valid, even if it doesn’t directly relate to the subject in question at all but yours does...and so on.

And then if you keep disagreeing with them, all their fans who still believe waht they say will rush to harass and denounce you and get approval points, while the primary abuser(s) disavow their involvement with the harassment (and yet make no effort to stop it). Next week, some of them will get the same treatment, or next month, or next year, whether for disagreeing, offering a minor factual correction or asking a question, or for some inherent trait or formerly-considered-harmless behavior that has suddenly become the new source of all evils. I really hope most of the lower-ranking REGs can get out of these Woke Personality Cults before they get hurt too badly, and unlearn the patterns of thought that got them there in the first place. Heck, I hope the higher-ranking ones can stop doing it, too. If they don’t--I want to say I hope they experience what they’ve done to others, but I’m not sure I could willingly inflict that on even the worst person in the world. There are certain levels of cruelty that are just pointless.

There is nothing more dangerous than a person utterly convinced of their own rightness or righteousness who has learned to manipulate people’s fears. Doubt yourself and your motivations often.

Personally, I think the only way to combat a politics of fear is to learn how to act out of love, but this post is already  a mile long. But tl;dr, REGs are manipulating people though a combination of fear of ostracism, fear of the villain of the day, and the positive reinforcement of being able to consider one’s self inherently good. Because ostracism can be so swift and arbitrary, and because the logic is so bad, their side of any discourse turns into though-terminating cliches, with an input-output based call-and-response so that the lower ranks do not even have to understand what those thought-terminating cliches mean, just the moral value attached to specific buzzwords. This prevents the dupes from figuring out that the catchphrases are either a) entirely meaningless or b) incredibly and unarguably bigoted if you consider their actual implications in the slightest. And all this resembles the “Chinese Room” scenario where someone can produce coherent or at least semi-coherent responses in a language they don’t understand by means of pattern recognition, within a limited set of possible topics, but not when something happens that isn’t programmed for.

[wetwareproblem]

I apologize for misspelling her name, I forgot the "g" in yingying zhang, kidnapped by brendt christensen. it was not intentionally being racist, it was an honest mispelling. I'm just saying it's suspicious that you have all this energy to talk about anti kink ppl but then when actual case of an a kinkster being an actual abuser happens you're silent and even admit to being petty now. just... yeah.

So yeah. You might not believe this, but we don’t hear everything that happens everywhere in the world. And yeah, we’ve had a lot less energy lately. It’s almost like we’re three thousand miles from home, dealing with the fact that temperature just quadrupled on us literally overnight and we don’t have the habit of drinking a sufficient amount of water for being in a desert. You want suspicious lack of attention? How about your lack of attention to our posts about our trip, or to the fact that we haven’t done any lengthy essays, kink or otherwise? How about your lack of attention to the response you already got from our partner, which I conveniently posted so you could see it while stalking my blog?

And yes, I’m being fucking petty. Because you don’t get to make fucking demands of me while simultaneously ignoring the numerous requests I’ve made of you. You are an entitled bag of dicks who expects me to bow and scrape without showing me even a modicum of decency, let alone respect. That doesn’t get me to expend half a day’s worth of spoons doing what you want; it gets pettiness and spite. This shouldn’t exactly be news if you’re all over my blog.

EDIT: I’m just gonna point out that “disavow every bad thing done by anyone who claims to share an identity with you!” is a shitty, bigoted mindset that leads to shitty, bigoted behaviour like this. Yeah, some members of any sufficiently large and open group - such as a public fucking website with open registration - are going to be fucking vile. Big surprise. Collective responsibility is shit.

Maybe that’s why you’re hiding behind grayface, anon; you know that if you were to step into the light and declare this acceptable behaviour, we could find countless examples of shitty people you happen to share an identity with.

[rennyrosie]

Thoughts from the counter protest

Boston.

What I saw, and what I was part of was energizing in all the right ways, and horrifying in all the worst ways.

I am angry. With others and myself, for doing what they did, and for not doing enough.

BEFORE I TALK ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT OUT A PSA. YES, I DO HAVE VIDEO EVIDENCE OF POLICE BRUTALITY IN BOSTON. NO, I WILL NOT PUT THEM UP, NOR WILL I GIVE THESE VIDEOS TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY REASON. THE ARRESTS WERE HORRIFYING AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT POLICE BRUTALITY IN ~PROGRESSIVE~ CITIES BUT THAT WAS NOT THE CRUX OF THE PROTESTS. THAT IS NOT THE MESSAGE THE PROTEST WAS TRYING TO PUT OUT.

The counter protest had two, maybe three clear "shifts" in a sense. There were the people who protested first and actually directly confronted the <50 rally attendees - yes, we did manage to scare the vast, vast, VAST majority of them out of attending - and then there was the group that I joined with, which had run-ins with a few straggling Nazis and ended with a standoff with Boston, Quincy, Northeastern, and MA Transit cops, as well as Special Forces of BPD (those were the uniforms I could identify, there could easily have been more) in front of the hotel that the rally attendees were staying in, which then bled into a series of blockades and altercations with BPD all the way down the rest of the street into the next intersection. People - protesters and cops alike - were dispersing when I left but there could also have been a third group that kept protesting in front of that hotel. I'm not sure.

The common threads I could see in both "shifts" were... disconcerting, based on what I saw and experienced, and what I heard about the first group. Both protests started peacefully, with people actively encouraging peaceful interactions despite instigation from the bigots in attendance. It's ironic that the rally tried to distance itself from Charlottesville and literally right after they published their disavowal of Nazis and white supremacists the KKK announced that they would be in Boston for the rally. Both groups focused on overpowering the rally-goers through unity, with chants and music.

Members of both groups were later manhandled by cops for "assaulting police" (including false claims that I can contradict with evidence), and for unruly behavior. The first group got tear gassed. A man who had been marching and protesting since this morning and walked with me for a good chunk of the time I spent there recommended I keep a spare T-shirt close at hand, in case we got gassed again. The second group got maced. After several arrests outside the rally attendants' hotel, people got pepper spray to the face. Both protests got screwed over by police duplicity. Yes, police DUPLICITY. BPD LIED to protesters to protect their asses. They told us that their defense of NAZIS was only because the rally had a permit and would only go until the permit expired at 2PM. Yet hours later, at 5PM, police were STILL protecting and defending them.

As far as how it went for me personally, it was... mixed.

The protest started off great. People were united, there was a feeling of empowerment in the air. But then a group of Trump supporters passed by, and some drunk threw a water bottle that landed between me, a couple people, and a man in a wheelchair. Things started to fall apart a little but before they could get really bad we started moving out of Boston Common. People were still excited, we were chanting "Whose streets? Our streets!" and "Black lives matter!" and "We're here! We're queer! We're fabulous! Don't fuck with us!" among other catchphrases. I pissed off a lady by shouting really loudly into her ear, idk if that was overwhelmingly rude of me or not but people were yelling all around her so :|

And then the cops came in and tried to hold us in one spot. Luckily, the only thing that happened was a shouting match between a protester and a cop, and people from both sides rushed in and pulled them apart before it could get really physical. That's when T-shirt Guy and I met and he told me about what happened this morning and recommended that I keep a spare T-shirt close, like on my shoulder or around my neck close, just in case they gassed us again. When we started marching again, we ran into a pair of rally-goers, one of whom was actually engaging with a protester in civil conversation. The other one, however, was goading and threatening protesters. Eventually the conversation broke down and became another rally with the two of them trying to justify their racism while we shut them down. As they were leaving, though, the second guy made another threat and a protester responded. I think she tried to punch him, but she barely touched him when she got pulled back by her friends, and his friend pulled him back before he could try to retaliate. They ran back to the hotel and we continued to reclaim the streets.

We reached the hotel they were staying at, where we were blocked by cops who were responding to us because the second guy was "suffering from blunt force trauma" inside and the cops didn't want us attacking him on private property. This resulted in more standoffs and some more verbal altercations with police. When the first fight between a cop and a protester happened, the cops separated us and blocked off the intersection leading to the corner of the street we were on. Several arrests were made, most of which involved undue police violence. People threw water bottles at the cops.

After a second fight broke out between a protester and a cop and a second string of arrests was made, a different cop pulled me aside and LITERALLY TRIED TO "GOOD COP" ME INTO LEAVING THE PROTEST. He talked to me about how he believed in our cause (I'm skeptical of him as a white male cop saying the things he said) and that he believed that I had genuinely good and pure intentions. AND THEN HE SAID THAT IT WAS A BAD IDEA TO GET MIXED UP WITH THUGS LIKE THESE AGITATORS WHO WERE JUST "CO-OPTING A GOOD MOVEMENT" TO START SHIT AND CAUSE TROUBLE. So I told him that if he really believed, he'd know that the people around me weren't thugs and their intentions were the same as mine. In the middle of my response, though, he pulled me a little to the side and very far back. It turns out he had pulled me out of the mace target area. As he did that, he said that "little ladies" like me could get hurt just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yeah, gross.

But it did get me thinking. If I had been more aware of my surroundings, could I have grabbed some of the people who got maced? How effective could I have been in the front, being the one the cops had to look at when they initiated anything? Part of me wishes I could have done more, but part of me looks at where I was and realizes it would have been unrealistic to expect me to push past people over a head taller than me to be a buffer. Heck, T-shirt Guy pulled me back BEHIND him when we first got blockaded, just in case the cops tried anything.

The fact that I hadn't helped people more frustrates me. But it also gives me a chance to think about my place in this conversation as an Asian fem-person. By no means am I attractive, but I do give off the "perpetually lost and innocent" vibe to older people. There are so many ways I can use that to protect people and preclude cops from whipping out the tear gas and mace. Now that I know, maybe I can do something. Maybe. I wish. I hope. I will try.

That cop also tried to lecture me on how "real protests" should go. When I mentioned I was from Korea, he talked to me about the protests in Seoul over President Park's impeachment and how peaceful we all were and how no major arrests were made, and how much he wished American "rioters" would follow suit. So I talked to him about militarized police in America, how right here right now they had 5+ different uniforms ready to mace and gas us at a moment's notice. He just shrugged at that and said that violence begets more violence, as though we were the ones advocating genocide and mass murder.

And that made me remember what box Nazis and white supremacists often put Asian fem-people in. As long as we comply and do everything we're told, we're smart for not being white, vaguely appropriate for procreating but the second we stand up to them we're filthy and soulless. There's a reason why (especially younger) white nationalists are also weeaboos with an unironic love for anime porn. There's a reason why white nationalists fetishize Asian women. And there's a reason why Asian men are emasculated and entirely desexualized in the same breath. As long as we're useful and quiet, we can be the standard that breaks apart minority solidarity. 'Look at the Asians; they succeed without complaining unlike you filthy others.' It's up to us to stop enabling them with silence.

This is getting really long and rambly and I'm not sure if there's much else for me to say. I'm not glad I went; I don't know if it was a particularly good idea for me to go, especially in the aftermath of yesterday when I was called a ch*nk while on the job canvassing for the SPLC, but I did go, and it does feel like I did something I absolutely needed to do.

Again, PSA, I'm not going to post any photos or videos of arrests. That dehumanizes the victims of police brutality and desensitizes us to the scale of the issue at hand.

[bharatiyamedia-blog]

Donald Trump defends racist tweets, says many individuals agree with him

http://tinyurl.com/yyd2exde Defiant within the face of widespread criticism, President Donald Trump renewed his belligerent name on Monday for 4 Democratic congresswomen of shade to get out of the US “proper now,” cementing his place as probably the most prepared US chief in generations to stoke the discord that helped ship him to the White Home. Content material to gamble {that a} sizeable chunk of the citizens embraces his tweets which have been extensively denounced as racist, the president made clear that he has no qualms about exploiting racial divisions as soon as once more. “It would not concern me as a result of many individuals agree with me,” Trump mentioned on the White Home. “Lots of people find it irresistible, by the way in which.” The episode served discover that Trump is prepared to once more depend on incendiary rhetoric on problems with race and immigration to protect his political base within the leadup to the 2020 election. There was close to unanimous condemnation from Democrats for Trump’s feedback and a rumble of discontent from a subset of Republicans – however notably not from the social gathering’s congressional leaders. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, the GOP White Home nominee in 2012 and now one of many president’s most vocal GOP critics, mentioned Trump’s feedback had been “harmful, demeaning, and disunifying.” Removed from backing down, Trump on Monday dug in on feedback he had initially made a day earlier on Twitter that if lawmakers “hate our nation,” they’ll return to their “damaged and crime-infested” nations. His remarks had been directed at 4 congresswomen: Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. All are Americans and three of the 4 had been born within the US. “For those who’re not pleased within the US, when you’re complaining on a regular basis, you may depart, you may depart proper now,” he mentioned. The president’s phrases, which evoked the trope of telling black folks to return to Africa, might have been partly meant to widen the divides throughout the Home Democratic caucus, which has been riven by inner debate over how finest to oppose his insurance policies. And whereas Trump’s assaults introduced Democrats collectively in protection of their colleagues, his allies famous he was additionally having some success in making the controversial progressive lawmakers the face of their social gathering. The president questioned whether or not Democrats ought to “wish to wrap” themselves round this group of 4 folks as he recited a listing of the quartet’s most controversial statements. The 4 themselves fired again late Monday, condemning what they referred to as “xenophobic bigoted remarks” from the president and renewing calls for his or her social gathering to start impeachment proceedings. Trump “doesn’t know methods to defend his insurance policies and so what he does is assault us personally,” mentioned Ocasio-Cortez. Home Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who mentioned Trump’s marketing campaign slogan really means he desires to “make America white once more,” introduced Monday that the Home would vote on a decision condemning his new feedback. The decision “strongly condemns President Donald Trump’s racist feedback” and says they “have legitimized and elevated worry and hatred of latest People and folks of color.” The Senate’s prime Democrat, Chuck Schumer of New York, mentioned his social gathering would additionally attempt to power a vote within the GOP-controlled chamber. Trump, who gained the presidency in 2016 partially by energizing disaffected voters with inflammatory racial rhetoric, made clear he has no intention of backing away from that technique in 2020. “The Dems had been attempting to distance themselves from the 4 ‘progressives,’ however now they’re compelled to embrace them,” he tweeted Monday afternoon. “Meaning they’re endorsing Socialism, hate of Israel and the USA! Not good for the Democrats!” Trump has confronted few penalties for such assaults up to now. They sometimes earn him cycles of wall-to-wall media consideration. He’s wagering that his most steadfast supporters might be energized by the controversy as a lot, or if no more so, than the opposition. “It is attainable I am fallacious,” Trump allowed Monday. “The voters will determine.” The president has advised aides that he was giving voice what a lot of his supporters imagine – that they’re bored with folks, together with immigrants, disrespecting their nation, in line with three Republicans near the White Home who weren’t approved to talk publicly about personal conversations. Trump on Monday singled out Omar, specifically, accusing her of getting “hatred” for Israel, and expressing “love” for “enemies like al-Qaida.” “These are folks that, for my part, hate our nation,” he mentioned. Omar, in an interview, as soon as laughed about how a university professor had spoken of al-Qaida with an depth she mentioned was not used to explain “America,” ?England” or “The Military.” She addressed herself on to Trump in a tweet, writing, “You might be stoking white nationalism (as a result of) you might be indignant that individuals like us are serving in Congress and combating in opposition to your hate-filled agenda.” Republicans, for his or her half, largely trod fastidiously with their responses. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a detailed ally of the president who golfed with him over the weekend, suggested him to “intention larger” throughout an look on “Fox and Buddies,” at the same time as he accused the 4 Democrats of being “anti-Semitic” and “anti-American.” Marc Brief, chief of employees to Vice President Mike Pence, mentioned “I do not assume that the president’s intent in any approach is racist,” pointing to Trump’s choice to decide on Elaine Chao, who was born outdoors the nation, as his transportation secretary. Chao is likely one of the few minorities among the many largely white and male aides in high-profile roles in Trump’s administration. She is the spouse of Senate Republican chief Mitch McConnell, who declined remark Monday on Trump’s assaults. The newest provocation got here simply two days after Trump inserted himself additional right into a rift between Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez, providing an unsolicited protection of the Democratic speaker. Pelosi has been looking for to reduce Ocasio-Cortez’s affect within the Home Democratic caucus in current days, prompting the freshman lawmaker to accuse Pelosi of attempting to marginalize ladies of color. Trump advised advisers later that he was happy along with his meddling, believing that dividing Democrats could be useful to him, as would elevating any self-proclaimed socialists as a approach to frighten voters to avoid their liberal politics, the Republicans mentioned. Among the many few GOP lawmakers commenting Monday, Rep. Pete Olson of Texas mentioned Trump’s tweets had been “not reflective of the values of the 1,000,000+ folks” in his district. “We’re proud to be probably the most numerous Congressional district in America. I urge our President instantly disavow his feedback,” he wrote. A number of different Republicans went out of their approach to say they weren’t condoning the views of the Democrats, whereas encouraging Trump to retract his feedback. Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who’s up for re-election subsequent yr, mentioned Trump’s tweet was “approach over the road and he ought to take that down.” Sen. Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania mentioned of the Democrats, “We must always defeat their concepts on the deserves, not on the idea of their ancestry.” In an Related Press-NORC Heart for Public Affairs Analysis ballot from February 2017, half of People mentioned the blending of tradition and values from around the globe is a vital a part of America’s id as a nation. Fewer – a few third – mentioned the identical of a tradition established by early European immigrants. However partisans in that ballot had been divided over these facets of America’s id. About two-thirds of Democrats however solely a few third of Republicans thought the blending of world cultures was essential to the nation’s id. By comparability, almost half of Republicans however nearly 1 / 4 of Democrats noticed the tradition of early European immigrants as essential to the nation. READ | Indian-origin Senator Kamala Harris racially targeted online WATCH | The Long Story: Stuck between friends !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) {if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)}; if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0'; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,document,'script', 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '605311446619075'); fbq('track', 'PageView'); fbq('track', 'ViewContent'); Source link

[theconservativebrief]

It’s been less than a year since the post-Weinstein Time’s Up movement kicked off. But some of the men who left their jobs or stopped appearing in public after being accused of sexual misconduct are already beginning to make noises about a comeback.

Bill O’Reilly was forced to resign from Fox News last year after being accused of multiple incidents of sexual harassment — accusations he denies. Now he is reportedly in talks to host a new TV show. Garrison Keillor is touring. Charlie Rose is shopping a new show. Mario Lopez, accused of groping multiple women, is reportedly thinking about starting a new company.

All of this may seem overly optimistic on the part of the accused men — Rose, let’s recall, was accused of sexually harassing eight women (he apologized but also claimed that not all of the accusations against him were accurate), and his plan is reportedly to just go around interviewing other accused men.

But history suggests that it’s not overly optimistic at all. All these men have a walking, talking reminder in front of them that the post-public disgrace comeback can be done. That you can be the most reviled man in Hollywood one minute and sitting pretty in the A-list section of the Oscars as a major nominee the next. That reminder’s name is Mel Gibson.

Gibson became persona non grata in Hollywood in 2006, after first spewing a string of anti-Semitic comments while he was being arrested on DUI charges and then pleading no contest to hitting the mother of his child.

“I don’t think I want to see any more Mel Gibson movies,” Barbara Walters announced on The View after that anti-Semitism scandal in 2006. Hollywood superagent Ari Emanuel called for the entire entertainment industry to boycott Gibson.

But in 2017, Gibson appeared at the Oscars as a nominee for Best Director, grinning happily in the front section. He’s back in now.

Looking at how Mel Gibson has managed his comeback shows us how the men accused of sexual misconduct over the past year might plan to manage their own. Gibson is a case study in how a man who by his own admission did monstrous things can convince people that disappearing from the public eye for a few years makes up for those monstrous things, and how he can find his way back into polite society.

Please note that the following article contains excerpts from Gibson’s tapes, including graphic discussion of rape and domestic violence and the use of slurs.

By the early 2000s, Mel Gibson was a bona fide movie star/auteur at the top of his game.

He was hot, and he had industry clout: People magazine’s first Sexiest Man Alive in 1985; Forbes’s most powerful celebrity in 2004. He had prestige: 1995’s Braveheart, which he starred in and directed, won him two Oscars, for Best Picture and Best Director. And he could open a movie. Between 1989 and 2002, 10 of his movies brought in $100 million or more domestically. When he directed and produced The Passion of the Christ in 2004, he raked in $600 million on a budget of $30 million.

In our current post–movie star age, there’s no real equivalent to what Gibson was at the peak of his fame, but imagine that Chris Hemsworth decided to moonlight as a director and was successful at it, or that Christopher Nolan had a thriving side career as an action star, or that George Clooney was less polished and had more consistent box office clout. Mel Gibson was that big and that powerful.

Then in 2006, he was pulled over by a police officer for drunk driving and launched into an anti-Semitic tirade. “Fucking Jews … the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” he said. “Are you a Jew?” he asked his arresting officer, before addressing another (female) officer as “Sugar Tits.” The arresting officer recorded the entire encounter, and the tape was later leaked to the internet.

The DUI incident was damaging for Gibson, especially because it wasn’t the first time he’d flirted publicly with anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry. The Passion of the Christ had been deeply controversial in 2004 for its depiction of Jews as bloodthirsty hordes calling for the death of Christ. “At every single opportunity, Mr. Gibson’s film reinforces the notion that the Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob are the ones ultimately responsible for the Crucifixion,” the Anti-Defamation League concluded.

In the wake of the DUI incident, more stories of anti-Semitism surfaced. Winona Ryder recalled that Gibson once called her an “oven-dodger.”

Other types of troubling comments from the past reemerged too. There was the homophobia. In 1991, Gibson infamously mocked gay men in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pais (“Do I look like a homosexual? Do I talk like them? Do I move like them?”), and when GLAAD recommended that he apologize, he responded, “I’ll apologize when hell freezes over. They can fuck off.”

Gibson has also repeatedly said that women were not equal to men, telling Playboy in 1995 that women should not become priests because “men and women are just different. They’re not equal.” When the interviewer asked for an example of the difference between men and women, Gibson elaborated, “I had a female business partner once. Didn’t work. … She was a cunt.”

An entire career’s worth of bigoted quotes — decades of them — were suddenly in the news, and the enormous machine that was Mel Gibson, movie star and successful director, began to falter.

Amy Pascal, then the head of Sony, disavowed him; so did former Universal president Sidney Sheinberg and Ari Emanuel. (Emanuel was head of William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, where Gibson’s agent Ed Limato worked, but Emanuel wasn’t able to get Gibson off the agency’s roster until just before Limato’s death in 2010.) ABC scrapped a miniseries Gibson was developing on the Holocaust.

Gibson announced that he was going into rehab and publicly apologized twice. “I acted like a person completely out of control … and said things I do not believe to be true and which are despicable,” he said.

“His career is over,” an insider told People magazine anonymously. “He’s going to become toxic.”

The negative press didn’t hurt Gibson’s ability to score at the box office too badly — Apocalypto, which he directed and released in 2006, grossed more than $50 million domestically on a $40 million budget. But the movie got middling reviews, and it turned out to be the last Gibson film to see a theatrical release for five years.

Then in 2010, Gibson’s girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva, with whom he had a child, accused him of hitting her so hard that he broke her teeth while she was carrying their infant daughter. Tapes leaked of their confrontation:

Oksana Grigorieva: You almost killed us, did you forget?

Mel Gibson: (making fake crying noises) The last three years have been a fucking gravy train for you.

O: (angry) You were hitting a woman with a child in her hands. You. What kind of a man is that? Hitting a woman when she’s holding a child in her hands? Breaking her teeth, twice, in the face, what kind of man is that?

M: (sarcastically) Mmm, ooh, you’re all angry now …

O: You’re going to get to, you know what?

M: You fucking deserved it.

O: You’re going to answer, one day, boy, you’re going to answer.

M: Huh?

O: There.

M: What, what? What are you threatening me?

O: Nothing, nothing. I’m not the one to threaten.

M: I’m threatening, I’ll put you in a fucking rose garden, you cunt. You understand that? ’Cause I’m capable of it. You understand that? Get a fucking restraining order. For what? What are you going to get a restraining order for? For me being drunk and disorderly? For hitting you? For what?

Elsewhere in the tapes, Gibson informs Grigorieva that “if you get raped by a pack of ni**ers it’ll be your fault,” and threatens to burn down the house with her in it, instructing her to “blow [him] first.”

Gibson later pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge for hitting Grigorieva; he served probation, underwent court-ordered counseling, and paid $600 in fines.

But if the legal consequences Gibson faced for his treatment of Grigorieva were minimal, the consequences in Hollywood were slightly splashier. His agency dropped him the day the tapes were released. (Emanuel finally had his opening to enact the boycott of Gibson he’d called for in 2006.) Leonardo DiCaprio pulled out of a movie Gibson was set to direct. A planned Gibson cameo in The Hangover 2 was scrapped after protests from the cast and crew. Get the Gringo, which Gibson produced, co-wrote, and starred in, never made it to a theatrical release in the US, instead languishing in video on demand upon its release in 2012.

There seemed to be a general consensus in Hollywood: No one wanted to see Mel Gibson’s face or have anything to do with him.

And so for years, he was silent.

But in 2016, the Gibson-directed Hacksaw Ridge grossed $175 million worldwide and $67 million domestically. It racked up six Oscar nominations, including one for Best Director. In 2017, Gibson headlined the family comedy Daddy’s Home 2, which grossed $180 million worldwide.

Gibson, the New York Times concluded, “has found himself back in Tinseltown’s warm embrace.” He has successfully managed a comeback.

So how did he get here from there?

There are four major tentpoles to Gibson’s comeback. It’s impossible to say that this four-part strategy is intentional on Gibson’s part — his publicist did not respond to a request for comment from Vox — but here’s what it looks like from the outside in.

First, Gibson rarely discusses either the DUI incident or the Grigorieva tapes in the press. Most of the interviews he grants are with friendly outlets — or, as Gibson friend and entertainment journalist Allison Hope Weiner phrased it in 2011 when she released Gibson’s first interview in years, with outlets where the editors are not “inclined to use this story to pursue their own agendas.” When he has to give an interview at a less friendly venue, he tends to do so with an associate who can run interference if the conversation seems to be trending toward any of Gibson’s scandals.

When Gibson does talk about his scandals, he suggests that if you really think about it, he was the wronged party, because his private moments of weakness were made public.

“Who anticipates being recorded? Who anticipates that?” he asked Deadline in 2011. “Who could anticipate such a personal betrayal?”

“Imagine the worst moment you have even had being recorded and broadcast to the world and it wasn’t meant to be public,” he said in 2016. “You didn’t stand on a soapbox and do it, but that’s what happens, you know.”

Gibson does not apologize. He does not express good wishes for the people he’s hurt. He maintains that he is the one who was really hurt. But mostly, he doesn’t say anything at all.

And he mostly doesn’t have to say anything. That’s the second tentpole of his comeback: He leaves the talking to his friends and allies, of which he has many, both in Hollywood and in the press.

“The fact that [Gibson] won’t jump to his own defense is part of his problem, but also part of why I have grown to respect him,” wrote Weiner for Deadline in 2014. (After publication, Weiner disclosed that Gibson was an investor in the media company at which she hosts two shows, but she maintained that “the suggestion that Mr. Gibson, or any third party, exercises influence over me or my shows is false.” Weiner did not respond to a request for comment from Vox.)

In her 2014 article, Weiner goes on to explain that she had become close with Gibson after covering him for years, and believed that he was not a bigot. He was just an alcoholic “with a frightening temper, capable of saying whatever will most offend the target of his anger.”

She cites the money Gibson had anonymously donated to Jewish charities, specifically lauding his secrecy, which, she says, was “in keeping with one of the highest forms of Tzedakah in the Jewish faith, giving when the recipient doesn’t know your identity.” (How secret those donations could possibly be when they’re being reported on in Deadline is not something Weiner discusses in the piece.)

As for the domestic violence charge? “From my own investigation of the incident, I am persuaded Gibson did not beat [Grigorieva] or give her a black eye,” Weiner writes. “I base this on interviews with her lawyer and the deputy district attorney who handled the case.”

She allows that Gibson has admitted to “tapping” Grigorieva, but argues that he was only reacting to Grigorieva shaking their infant daughter. The section of the leaked tape in which Grigorieva accuses Gibson of hitting her and he responds, “You fucking deserved it,” Weiner does not discuss.

Instead, she says, it was Grigorieva who was extorting Gibson for money. And anyway, she adds, Gibson was going through a really hard time back then, so it doesn’t even count. “He was depressed and lonely, his career in shambles as he apologized to anyone who’d listen,” she writes. “Those recordings revealed a man in personal turmoil.”

This general narrative — Gibson didn’t do it, and if he did, it doesn’t count, and if you think about it, he’s the real victim, and he’s actually very sorry and I’ll tell you all about it but you’d never know otherwise because he’d never say so himself — is one that has been repeated again and again by Gibson’s allies. When Peter Biskind profiled Gibson for Vanity Fair in 2011, he spoke to dozens of sources who were willing to spout the same talking points that Weiner trotted out in 2014 — including one anonymous friend who argued that the infamous DUI incident was secretly Gibson’s attempt at suicide by cop.

“I don’t think this was about being anti-Semitic,” the friend says. “I think he was trying to rile that guy into pulling out a gun and shooting him. Before he left the restaurant that night, he went to every single table and said good-bye. Why would you say good-bye to every table unless you think you’re never going to see them again? I believe that what was going on that night was a farewell.”

Even the friends of Gibson’s who aren’t willing to discuss his controversies will still come to his defense. Jodi Foster gave Gibson his first starring role after his DUI in 2011’s The Beaver, and then fought for the movie to be released after the Grigorieva tapes went public.

“God, I love that man,” Foster said of Gibson on the film’s publicity tour. “The performance he gave in this movie, I will always be grateful for. He brought a lifetime of pain to the character that we’ve been talking about for years, that I knew was part of his psyche and who he is. It’s part of him that is beautiful and that I want people to know, too. I can’t ever regret that.”

And Robert Downey Jr. pleaded with Hollywood to forgive Gibson. “Unless you are without sin — and if you are, you are in the wrong [expletive] industry, you should forgive him and let him work,” Downey said in 2011.

But the testimony of Gibson’s allies could only do so much. The comeback strategy needed a third tentpole: time. Gibson kept his head down and worked quietly in small genre movies for a few years, so that when he made his big push back into the mainstream with Hacksaw Ridge in 2016, 10 years after his DUI and six years after the domestic violence accusations, he could argue that he’d been out of play for a decade and that it was enough time.

“I’ve done a lot of work on myself these last 10 years,” he told Deadline. “I’ve deliberately kept a low profile. I didn’t want to just do the celebrity rehab thing for two weeks, declare myself cured and then screw up again. I think the best way somebody can show they’re sorry is to fix themselves and that’s what I’ve been doing and I’m just happy to be here. He who tries, gets.”

Hacksaw Ridge also added a fourth tentpole to Gibson’s comeback strategy. He was able to successfully break back into the mainstream as a director, not an actor, which meant he could keep his face out of the public eye while people got used to the idea of him being back in Hollywood. It was only after Hacksaw Ridge’s success legitimized Mel Gibson the director again that Mel Gibson the actor was able to make his triumphant reappearance in polite society with Daddy’s Home 2.

There was pushback to Gibson’s rearrival. “Hold on, how is Mel Gibson still a thing?” protested the feminist entertainment blog the Mary Sue.

“Is Mel Gibson really such an invaluable cultural figure that we should forgive or tolerate or willfully ignore this pattern of behavior?” demanded GQ in an article on Gibson’s “unearned” comeback. “Is anyone?”

The Daily Beast called for shame on Hollywood for allowing Gibson his comeback.

“Mel Gibson is unworthy of a ‘comeback,’ but he’s getting one anyway,” concluded Jezebel.

But Gibson seems to have gotten his comeback, regardless of any number of outraged think pieces. He’s doing fine. The four strategies worked.

Together, these four strategies create a kind of blurriness around exactly what Gibson did, and a mist of nebulous remorse around his subsequent behavior: Something happened, but it really wasn’t that big a deal, and now he feels bad, and anyway, it was all a long time ago. It gives his comeback a sense of vagueness — and that’s exactly what the men tarred by #MeToo will most likely try to create as they plot their own comebacks.

After all, Gibson’s career appears to be in full flower. He has signed on to direct the World War II drama Destroyer. He stars with Sean Penn in The Professor and the Madman, set to be released this fall. Reportedly, he is being eyed to star opposite Mark Wahlberg in Warner Bros.’ The Six Billion Dollar Man. If your goal is to convince the world to forget that you have been credibly accused of doing terrible things, and to find a way to once again work in the uppermost echelons of Hollywood, then Gibson is an admirable role model.

So as those disgraced men begin to put the pieces in motion to plot the next steps of their careers, the question that remains is whether the collective we are capable of holding on to the specific details of the dozens and dozens of horrific cases of sexual misconduct that came out last fall — or whether we��ll shrug and say that sure, something bad happened. But it was a long time ago and it really wasn’t that big a deal.

Original Source -> Mel Gibson has set the blueprint for a #MeToo comeback. Expect other men to follow it.

via The Conservative Brief