#the idea that the notion of humanity is a construct when really

[endivinity]

Would you be ok with indivituals using some of your fallouty unique deathclaws and other creature drawings as references when theyre running a private Fallout TTRPG campaign amongst friends?

Totally ok if youre not fine with that! I just wanted to check.

it may be possibly time for another long-winded explanation that will enrage precisely two people who will send me weird anon hate over it because they don't understand the notion of transformative works but - It's hard to state in plain terms what I am and aren't comfortable with people using my art for, because even for me there's a lot of handwavey 'am i really uncomfortable with this or is it just a kneejerk reaction' kind of thing with a lot of caveats

there's often a pretty big disconnect between what people view as references - some people will view it as a single image, like "for reference, this is what it looks like" and slap the art down on the table for their players to go WHOAAAA over (repost blogs tend to do this). For an artist doing this, it's usually as a study, or results in a pretty obvious 1:1 because the idea they're pulling from isn't diluted across a range of things.

The other use of reference is several images and enough of your own personal touch to put a unique spin on all of them in a cohesive artwork or design. This is the bit that a lot of people stumble over, because they go 'but I like this thing only' and don't want to venture beyond that. If you're able to not only pull a range of artworks, but a range of artworks by different artists, immense kudos to you. The way I construct deathclaws is from an immense knowledge of weird animals and different media. For instance, Spectral makes use of a deathclaw, a ghost leviathan from subnautica, a xenomorph, and the understanding of vestigial limbs, bioluminescence, diaphanized tissue, and opalization. Transforming this in a tabletop might therefore look like the image itself, but then adding say the aquatic spinosaurus theory in there and making it swim out of an irradiated lake with a paddle tail and a huge back crest. And a bigger mouth with worse teeth that can strip a human's arm down to the bone in one degloving bite. You don't necessarily have to be able to draw it (I'm in a bit of a niche and therefore shouldn't hold everyone to my same standards) but it also says good things about your ability to host a tabletop game if you're able to be creative with the unique ideas you put in it and your ability to visualize and describe them. Embrace that. (Some of the kickback against this was people going 'well artists do this all the time, they take other artists' works for their references, that's part of the industry standard' but that's the point of transformative works and not typically modern tabletop gaming. I'm also just one person doing this. I'm not an industry professional, I'm not a huge company for which my works are publicly available in an immensely popular IP. It may be fanart and I don't own deathclaws, but I still own all rights to the art itself. Some people (that one really furiously angry anon in particular) hold me to the same standard as if I was representative of Bethesda Softworks itself and therefore it's right and proper to take my shit, because it's deathclaws, and all deathclaws are Bethesda's, and I wouldn't be this popular without that, I should expect people to take my stuff, it's the internet - I am just one person making fanart. and I am very tired.) I think the biggest problem I have with people taking my designs for TTRPG assets is that it's the only reaction they have sometimes. the 'wow cool! can I take this?' reaction akin to a little child shoving things in their mouth. That doesn't reflect well on you, and for the artist it doesn't feel good. And most tabletop gaming these days is casual sessions that usually center around getting the campaign itself done with little creativity beyond what the players bring to the table, which results in using other peoples' art they found on google without being creative about it at all, which is why you'll see a lot of artists who have beef with it, because it also doesn't feel good. All this to say - if you ask and are respectful and credit back, it still feels weird to me, but like... sure! I do this for fun and to express creativity, so if it encourages other people to also have fun and express their creativity, I'd feel bad saying no to an earnest request! It's fanart, we're all fans here, etc But also most people who aren't respectful won't ask, won't be creative, or will get mad when I say Can You Don't, so I'm kinda preaching to the wrong crowd here - to those people, you're right, I can't stop you from doing it anyway. but it will not put you in my good books

[posletsvet]

Death Is a Mirror, or How Death Is Linked to the Sense of Self in Jujutsu Kaisen

Death is a fulcrum of Jujutsu Kaisen's message, a major point of reference for both the audience and the characters within the story. Death is a mirror that catches and reflects the last light of a life reaching its end, a moment of full disclosure that overcomes all distances and renders all defenses permeable. Death is a mirror as it asks one question: who are we when there's no more need to lie?

The thread that binds together all major characters' deaths in Jujutsu Kaisen is how, despite multiple characters trying in an unreliable-narrator-sort of fashion to convince us otherwise, no one's truly alone in death. The connections that people forge with others throughout their lives become their tethers to the world -- and then reach even further, transcending death itself. This is how humans, using Jogo's words, can still linger after they die: through the loving memory of those they held dear.

No human exists in a vacuum. We live in the context of our relationships with the world, of getting to know and getting to be known in return. Our lives, in a sense, are a dialogue -- that's why we give and are given names. We shape the images of ourselves through establishing connections with others; our self-recognition and sense of self come from recognizing those connections. Once again, we learn the outllines of our souls by bumping into others.

These two concepts, recollecting your 'tethers' before death and acquiring self-reflection in others, are consistently brought together in the story. Before everything else, it's reflected in Yuuji's (who the story's focal point as its protagonist) idea of a meaningful death, one gone surrounded by those you love. Nobara, who possesses arguably the strongest sense of self with her loud proclamation 'I'm Nobara Kugisaki!' and who's highly conscious about her relationships with other people. Megumi, whose overarching struggle for self-determination has him relying on others to define his own worth and leaves him passively suicidal. Toji, who in his last moments thinks about his family and understands that by leaving them behind he deviated from his true self. Nanami, whose fading mind conjures the image of his closest friend and who, guided by that, chooses to go south and stay true to himself. Kokichi is yet another example, and actually quite an interesting one. His character is explored primarily through the juxtaposition between the concept of 'the body within the world' and his forced isolation, but who still contextualizes the world through his connections with his friends. It's no coincidence that Kokichi's character arc is closely linked to Mahito, who is dubbed a mirror of death.

In short, there's a plethora of instances where death and one's sense of self are tied to one another like that. I'll ramble a bit about how this correlation is discovered in both Gojo and Geto's characters below the cut.

The lack of self

Gojo is somebody who's essentially lacking both connections to others and a sense of self-identity. His entire personality is shaped around the notion that he's The Strongest, the very thing which prevents him, even if in his own mind, from building meaningful relationships with the people around him.

Not having to challenge or change his self-image, Gojo has little to no recognition of himself as a person outside of his title. He has never faced a need to discover himself in relation to the world; he was given a foundation to construct his identity on upon birth. Did he really need to grow past that and redefine himself? Satoru lacks self-reflection -- most literally.

With Gojo's face obscured by the gaping void, we do not get to see his reflection. I'd say it's quite an apt visualization of Gojo's identity crisis. Who are you if not The Strongest? As Gojo's position is challenged with his Infinity suddenly overcome, this question is forced onto him.

But as he's spent over a decade trying to escape answering it, he never got a chance to acquire a definitive answer. So now, in Shibuya, he flees from it once more.

It's painfully ironic and at the same time fully logical that it is Geto who exposes this issue to Satoru as Gojo's sense of self is arguably connected to him more than anyone else. During their student years Suguru was the one who persistently rejected treating Gojo as a title and not a person, who looked through decorum and actively chose to see him not as Gojo Satoru, The Strongest but rather as Gojo Satoru, a teenage boy. For Gojo, it was through Geto recognizing him as a person that he was able to reach that recognition, too.

But after Toji Gojo is forced to seek self-affirmation and validate his ego by reclaiming his position, which was threatened by him losing to somebody for the first time. He tries to reinforce his self-image by separating himself from the world, which ultimately leads not only to his now automatic Infinity rendering him unreachable (= disconnected), but also to a loss of his sense of self as he loses his one and only connection.

As I've already said, with the Prison Realm breaching the defenses of Gojo's technique, this issue, his lack of a firm sense of identity beyond his title, is exposed to him once more. It's reflected in the way Satoru places his priorities post-unsealing. He fights Sukuna with seemingly a single purpose of cementing his position as the strongest sorcerer alive and thus regaining his uderstanding of who he is. The answer to this question has never lain in the plane of strength alone, though, and that is why Satoru fails utterly.

But in death, as the relevance of his Infinity is eliminated, Gojo is finally able to reconnect with his sense of self. He's reverted to his teenage self, to the time he could still relate to somebody on a personal level and get stronger for it. The entirety of the 236 chapter, in a sense, is written as an affirmative: he is The Strongest because he is Satoru Gojo, not the opposite, but it's his death which makes him finally recognize this.

The deviation from self

Now, this image could not be intended as a visual parallel to Gojo's reflection, or lack of thereof, in the Prison Realm's eye. Nonetheless seeing that scene in Shibuya animated immediately reminded me of it, and I think there potentially might be some thematic similarities between the two as well.

Talking about how our identities are defined by our connections to other people as much as our relationship with ourselves, it'd be only logical to assume that Geto should have a firm grasp on who he is. Not only is he a deeply self-reflective character, but also one who actively relates to others.

However, Geto's reflection in Gojo's eyes is unclear and uncertain, almost indistinguishable. It might be a neat way to convey how, finally taking a moment to look at his best friend for the first time since SPVI, Gojo doesn't really recognize him for how much he's changed. But it also could hint at how Geto, driven to the point where he bends and warps his beliefs to justify his actions, also bends and warps his sense of self.

At least how I see it, the image above calls to mind this panel:

The moment Geto tells Satoru he's decided on 'his true feelings' which would define him as a person. Isn't it ironic how in the exact same conversation he talks about how the goal he's settled upon is only possible for Gojo, meaning striving to achieve it would be akin to trying to become someone he's not? The light novel outright tells us as much:

This was the final confession of a man who could only choose to warp himself, who had erased himself in pursuit of his goals. The only person who could bear such a curse was Gojo Satoru.

In this light it's interesting how Gojo's struggle with his sense of self makes itself known through something which threatens his position as The Strongest, whereas Geto's is reflected in the eyes of someone to whom he refers while saying 'If I could become you...', deviating from himself.

A major factor of overcoming trauma is embracing the inadequacy of what happened. So, to a certain extent, by becoming an enemy to the system Suguru wants to prove the world of jujutsu sorcerers wrong and himself -- right. It once again reminds me of Toji's dying thoughts.

The flip side of 'deciding on your true feelings' is ultimately anchoring your entire identity to what is just a single aspect of it. People exist in motion, and our personalities are in actuality as dynamic and complex as our relationships. But Geto bound his self-definition to what was rather simply a reactive feeling, so in the end he inevitably failed to live up to it.

And once again, it's exposed at the moment of Suguru's death. In his case, though, this failure is also what leads to his defeat and consequent death in the first place. I also find it curious how Geto's face is the first thing Gojo sees in the afterlife, while Gojo's face is the last thing Geto sees and acknowledges in his life. And just like Gojo, in his last moments Suguru reminisces about their shared past.

The image almost mirrors what we saw in the chapter 236, suggesting how Geto's true self is in turn tied to Satoru. Despite how vague and uncertain their relationship's come to be, the two are rendered inseperable even in death -- or rather, in death especially.

[sugar-grigri]

The nail that sticks out gets hammered down

Guns, nails, katanas: I think it's interesting to read this title not just in terms of the chapter's construction, but as three notions serving the same idea, which is what we're going to develop. 

The chapter opens with the students, followers of the Church of Chainsaw Man, who don't really know what to do with their weapons. They weren't even aware that they had so many, which marks a continuity with the last chapter, when Nobana wasn't even aware that there were weapons.

Their reaction becomes the opposite when their superior gives them a reason to interpret the weapons differently - they're no longer guns in the hands of children, but a continuation of Chainsaw Man's message and power.

I think that's an easy interpretation to have, but it's one worth establishing for the sequel. The guns are only a third part of the reasoning, after all. 

When the fiend arrives on the scene, it's also interesting the moment and the way they's cut off. Strangely enough, the fire doesn't start until they begins to suggest that children shouldn't be holding weapons, as if someone wanted to prevent them from provoking an awakening of conscience. All symbolic, of course. 

I insist on the fact that the response of the weapons is instantaneous because in French the line is well cut (I read both versions because sometimes it helps me to have a re-reading on certain lines and I perceive better the indicators notably on the tone… And yes, you missed the fiend saying Ouh Là Ouh Là Là… )

The fiend seems to have a strong desire to protect children. Which gives us an idea of the demon they might embody. A common trait that could be given to fiends is that they are beings (and I say this with all the love I bear them) intellectually limited or rather who have a way of reasoning that is more animal and demonic (logical, they are demons they embody) than human.

Whether it's Power, who only reasoned through the prism of domination, or Beam, who considered himself Chainsaw Man's pupil and follower, the possessed reason strictly through hierarchy, or rather through a kind of food chain, which is typically bestial. 

Seeing what looks like a fiend, or even a devil, reasoning in terms of child protection induces the idea that they must have something to do with these children to reason in such an abstract way as child protection. 

Especially as it's something they embodies rather than understands themself, since they remains demonic, bashing in the skull of a child they themself wanted to protect, but had spoken to wrongly, as if this "lesson" were also part of his upbringing. 

That's why I interpret this fiend as harboring the devil of studies. Which is logical? It's one of the main fears of young people in particular, whether it's the choice of direction, exams, or even because it's related to the future, studies are a subject of anxiety. 

Particularly in a Japanese system in which the costs of studying are considerable, with university rankings that can be quite anxiety-provoking for high-school students. 

That's why this fiend is so revolted by the sight of children with weapons, and nails them to walls rather than brutally killing them all.

Moods and compassion are not necessarily inherent concepts in the fiends, even if they are capable of them, as we saw with Power.

But then again, if Power changed her behavior, it was only with regard to Denji and Aki, because they were part of her pack and her entourage, just like Meowy.

Sacrificing herself for Denji, even if she did in the end, was by no means obvious, hence the fact that there were several pages before her second death where she considered two options: her survival by helping Makima and her certain death to protect her brother. 

That's why the fiend's words are so strange and put me on the trail of the study demon.

Skull-hammering, or being overloaded with information and knowledge to be accumulated, is symbolized by this protruding brain. 

In the same way, the fact that the demon possessed has no eyes symbolizes the school system, whose aim is to develop students without actually seeing them. 

I was thinking about the hammer, but the title indicates that it's the nails we should be thinking about.

Hence the title of this analysis, which takes up a famous saying :

The nail that sticks out gets hammered down

Obviously, this saying alone cannot reflect the complexity of Japanese society, which is sometimes even used as a caricature by the Western media. 

Nevertheless, without falling into caricature, it symbolizes a simple idea: Japanese society, unlike Western society, puts the collective before the individual. 

This doesn't mean that the individual is completely erased, but that he is encouraged to consider his behavior from a more global angle, one that transcends himself. 

It's simply a saying that can be understood as advice: if you step out of line, you can expect to encounter more difficulties.

This is as true for a Japanese society as it is for a Western one. I'm not establishing any hierarchy of values.

Hence the nails, which freeze individuals where they belong. 

That's why this possessed person has an aversion to seeing students with guns: it's not just for protection, it's also for compartmentalization. Society doesn't give students the role of assailants; their role is to have a criterion in their hands. 

We continue with this superior, who also happens to be possessed by the demon of justice. His posture is not only interesting in that it's a completely instrumentalized justice in the sense that it puts children in danger for a better purpose, but it's above all the thesis of necessary evil, i.e. fighting evil with evil. 

If human morality were to be summed up, it would be through this maxim: preventing wars with wars, protecting like Chainsaw Man while endangering students - that's the whole human contradiction.

So, of course, the fiend find him vain when he argues that he is the best incarnation of justice.

It's typical of man to imagine himself superior to other species. 

We end on Katana, who arrives with a cutaway (which I loved) to declare that there's no justice with Chainsaw Man. 

So, in one line, we put back in place all the originality of this character, and I find it incredible. 

This line is both true and ironic!

True, because Chainsaw Man humiliated him by killing his grandfather, winning against him and beating his private parts with Aki to avenge Himeno. 

But above all, Katana Man has been brought up among the Yakuza, who he believes are governed by the same principles as his grandfather, to the point where he firmly clings to this position.

Katana Man hasn't evolved at all on this issue .

Ironic, given that Katana Man's grandfather was Denji's debt collector, the man who ended up ordering the overindebtedness and dismemberment of a child.

Indeed, Denji has no idea what justice is, for his life is profoundly unjust, whether it's being indebted for his father's misdeeds or dying prematurely. 

Above all, he doesn't take justice into his own hands; Denji didn't take revenge on Aki and Power with Makima, he saved her, just as he pursues his own personal goals of killing demons; they don't slaughter demons to bring justice to all those unjust deaths, he fights because they turn him on, he's an instrument, not a vigilante. 

What the chapter speaks to in these three themes is the whole paradox of protection, whether it's seeking justice through the church by sending children as gunpowder.

Whether it's trying to protect these children by enclosing them in a school system.

Whether it's protecting ideals that are unfounded. 

Once again we follow the analysis of the last time, public hunters choose weapons or possessions that limit the damage to the teenagers who constitute the nation's precious asset. The church uses children as a kind of barrier, not because they think they're good soldiers, but because they're moral barriers. So they send a possessed man convinced that he's protecting the children.

Or a weapon who thinks he still has a man's heart.

It's not just a clash between the two camps; it's also a battle for public approval.

Katana Man and Chainsaw Man are two sides of the same coin, the same story. While one has known a loving grandfather whom he loves so much that he closes himself off in denial (to the point of always refuting Denji's version that he murdered his grandfather as a zombie, even though the only legacy he left him was a zombie weapon), the other has known the monster and has therefore not internalized concepts such as love, compassion or justice.

Katana Man is a weapon who has been instrumentalized by the Yakuza, and is still deluding himself to find meaning in his existence, while Denji is one of the few weapons living strictly for himself at the moment.

He's the only one who truly follows his heart !

[thoughtcascades]

Is it possible to love a person you've never seen before but you just fall in love with the person based on the things the person has written?.. if YES then I love you so much. I want to see you.

Alright, let's be real here. Falling for someone based purely on their words? It's a romantic notion, sure, but let's not kid ourselves. When you only have their writing to go by, you're essentially falling for an idea, a construct in your head, not the actual person. It's like falling in love with a character in a novel – it feels deep, but it's not real life. People can be whoever they want to be on paper. They can hide their flaws, exaggerate their virtues, and completely leave out the messy, complicated parts that make them human. In real life, love is not just about poetic words or shared interests. It's about dealing with all the boring, difficult, and sometimes annoying bits of someone's personality that you don't get to see in their writing. So, if you're saying you love me based on what I've written, I appreciate the sentiment, but come on, you don't really know me. You're in love with the version of me that writes well, not the one who might forget to put the toilet seat down or gets grumpy without their morning coffee. Real love is about accepting the whole package, warts and all, and you can't get that from just words on a screen.

[talkingpointsusa]

Matt Walsh's ignorant bigotry about Imane Khelif shows just how little he knows about the subject he claims to be an expert on

I'm back from DC folks! I saw Mike Johnson in person (true story, didn't have tomatoes to throw sadly) and got to flip off the Heritage Foundation Building. Now I'm back to talk about lighthearted topics like....transphobia and....misogyny. God, writing this blog is going to be the death of me.

So, Matt Walsh is one of the worlds top experts on transgender issues....or at least he thinks he is. In reality, Matt Walsh is an ignorant and loud-mouthed bigot who mostly shoots from the hip based off of his preconceived notions about minority groups whose existence he hates. Naturally, he decided to weigh in on the latest completely BS controversy about the Olympics that right-wing media made up seemingly to make the first day I got back from DC and checked in on what they’re doing as miserable as possible. In all seriousness, lets see what Matt's yapping about this time.

01:04, Matt Walsh: "One of the most common arguments you'll hear in defense of gender ideology is that some people are intersex and therefor the gender binary is a myth."

At the very least the existence of intersex people proves that the construct of gender isn't as black and white as Matt Walsh likes to portray it as on his show. Matt likes to claim that gender is binary but he's completely wrong. For example, Matt would tell you that a woman is a biological female whilst ignoring that some people are born intersex or born with heightened levels of testosterone, which in Matt's world doesn't make them female. Matt would tell you that a woman is defined by the ability to give birth because "men can't get pregnant" but some women are born infertile. None of these rhetorical games really matter since gender is a social construct whereas sex is biological but they are certainly worth noting.

The truth is that Matt doesn't know jack shit about biology nor sociology and is simply a bigot using distorted versions of those concepts to camouflage his hateful rhetoric. Matt is not somebody who has a lot of respect for science, he regularly disregards the scientific evidence for climate change as nonsense and ignores the mountains of scientific evidence that validate trans and queer identity. However, when he feels like he can use it to validate his weak arguments Matt will gesture vaguely towards "the science", not cite anything, and proceed to act as if he's made some kind of salient point that debunks the scientific community. He's not using evidence, he's using his gut and he'd look like a complete idiot if he actually debated someone that isn't a college freshman without media training.

01:21, Matt Walsh: "You often hear wildly inflated numbers from gender activists about how many intersex people there are in the world. You also hear various definitions for what it means to be intersex, those definitions are often tailored to that -- so that they can inflate the number of people who qualify as intersex."

Matt Walsh has no idea what he's talking about. According to the World Population Review, nearly two out of 100 babies in the United States are born intersex. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, an intersex person is somebody born with sex characteristics including genitals, chromosomes, etc that do not align with the traditional male/female gender binary. Intersex is an umbrella term which is probably where Matt's getting those "varying definitions" from.

Matt seems to think that there's some bizarre conspiracy to artificially inflate the number of people that qualify as intersex but the truth is that some things just don't have a hard definition. However, I understand how this might be confusing for somebody who seems to reduce the human condition down to what genitals you were born with.

01:39, Matt Walsh: "Here's the only definition that has any meaning, as Leonard Sax framed it. Being intersex means that your phenotypic sex, meaning your primary sex characteristics, is inconsistent with your chromosomal sex. For example, someone with Y chromosomes is biologically male and normally has male genitalia but if that person develops female genitalia or genitalia that appear female than that person would be a biological male that suffers from intersexuality."

This definition is widely considered to be pretty outdated. For example, that definition would exclude people with Klinefelter Syndrome which is a condition that is widely considered by modern scientific organizations as a variation of intersexuality that isn't covered by Sax's definition.

Leonard Sax himself isn't a very credible source. Sax is an advocate for single-sex education, the practice of segregating education by gender, and his claims around said topic have been refuted as pseudoscience based off of gender stereotypes while ignoring the children that don't necessarily fit the black and white definition that those stereotypes box children into. Sax has also pushed the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Hitler was actually Jewish, a conspiracy theory that was originally started by Adolf Hitlers own attorney. Historians agree that Sax's evidence was complete ahistorical nonsense. In short, not only are this guys findings on the definition of intersexuality at odds with the broader scientific community but he has a documented record of pushing conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. In short, this guys a wingnut.

02:09, Matt Walsh: "On the other hand, if someone is born with Y chromosomes and then chooses to remove his male genitalia through surgery that individual would not suddenly become intersex."

Absolutely nobody on the planet is claiming that being trans is the same thing as being intersex and there are multiple articles explaining the difference. The issue that Matt seems to be having here is that intersex people are often brought up as an example of how the black and white view of sex and gender brought up by people like him doesn't really make any sense due to the fact that even if you ignore the existence of trans people there are still outliers in even the biological binary. The only person who interprets that as "Ha! You're saying that trans people and intersex people are the same thing!" is Matt Walsh who doesn't seem to understand that everything isn't black and white and that you actually have to look at things with nuance sometimes.

02:50, Matt Walsh: "At the Olympics the other day that confusion led to a male, somebody with XY chromosomes, pummeling a woman in the face at a woman's boxing event on live television."

For those who have been living under a rock, in which case I envy you, this story concerns an Olympic boxing match that took place between Imane Khelif and Angela Carini where Khelif won.

Khelif is a cisgender female and has been for all her life. There is no publicly available evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes at the time of writing and even if she did that would legally make her an intersex woman due to the rest of her physical characteristics being female.

"But she failed a gender test!", cry the transphobes. Yes, she did in fact fail a gender test but the methodology for this test was never disclosed nor was a copy of the results. The IBA, the organization that gave Khelif the test, is an organization with deep ties to the Russian government that once elected a businessman with deep ties to heroin trafficking and Russian organized crime as their president. Conversely, the IBA only disqualified Khelif after she beat a Russian boxer in the ring, funny how that works. Furthermore, the International Olympic Committee has cut ties with the IBA over concerns of corruption and has denounced the test on Khelif as illegitimate.

Basically, this is another instance of right-wing media running with Russian propaganda to justify their hatred for others. It's disgusting and clear-cut bigotry.

03:01, Matt Walsh: "This male, an Algerian named Imane Khelif, was reportedly DNA tested at the Woman's Olympics World Boxing Championships in New Delhi last year by an organization called IBA and officials at the time disqualified Khelif from the competition because testing confirmed a Y chromosome which means again, that Khelif is a male. There are reports of some sort of disorder affecting the primary sex characteristics, I can't verify those either way."

Hey Matt, I looked this up and I verified it extremely quickly. At the very least it is Matt's responsibility as somebody presenting themself as a journalist to disclose the fact that the legitimacy of this test is in question.

03:42, Matt Walsh: "Intersex is just a word we've come up with to describe people who suffer from certain conditions and deformities. Intersex is not a third sex, it's not an exception to the rule of the sex binary. There are no exceptions. Everybody is either male or female, everyone."

There's that black and white thinking again. The thing is that this argument doesn't make sense because the primary definition of intersexuality is people that don't fit that exact black and white binary that Matt's laid out here. This entire topic invalidates that black and white approach to gender and Matt doesn't even realize it.

04:08, Matt Walsh: "However, the International Olympic Committee, which is overseeing the boxing competition at the Paris Olympics, apparently doesn't care about Chromosomes. According to the Washington Post, the IOC doesn't test for gender. Now, it's not really clear what that means. Does that mean that they'd let Lebron James compete in the woman's basketball tournament?"

I don't know where he's getting that from, this is the full article and I can't find the quote Matt's talking about anywhere but some twitter thread that claims that this article has it in there somewhere. I have a funny feeling that Matt just read something on Twitter and ran with it without checking.

So, Matt's mad at testosterone testing which is something that it doesn't make sense for him to be mad at but go off I guess.

04:27, Matt Walsh: "What it appears to mean based on reporting that I've found is that the IOC allows different events to implement some testosterone guidelines, not rules but just guidelines which can vary event by event. And if that's the case, it obviously would be completely useless for a few reasons. One of them is that even if you have low levels of testosterone now, you might have had very high levels in the past which would contribute to increased muscle strength, bone growth, etc."

Except that testosterone levels peak during your late teens-20's and the current average age for an Olympian is around 27 years old, which by the way is a record high meaning that for most of the history of the Olympics it's been significantly younger. The average healthy male will only start to see a marked decrease in testosterone levels when they're significantly older.

But yeah, good thinking Matt, you really showed them. Truly a man of science over here.

04:56, Matt Walsh: "The other reason is that having high levels of testosterone doesn't make you a man in and of itself, having a Y chromosome doesn't make you a man and a man with low testosterone, even a man with very low testosterone, is still a man."

"And by the way, this doesn't apply to women with high testosterone who are men." - probably also Matt Walsh given his track record when it comes to that group of people.

05:48, Matt Walsh: "Now, one of the things about all these gender tests and DNA tests is that it really, for the most part, they're not even necessary. Like, looking at that footage anyone can instantly tell that Angela Carrini was fighting a male."

And here's where the misogyny comes in. In Matt's eyes, women who are physically strong are naturally men because surely there's no possible way for a woman to actually be that strong without some kind of tieback to masculinity. I guess by his own logic, Matt's also for banning basketball players for being too tall.

06:59, Matt Walsh: "Now, trans activists have claimed that the fact that this male boxer apparently isn't trans, that's the claim anyway I don't know for sure, the fact that Khelif is allegedly intersex, that that somehow proves the point about the woman's sports issue but of course it does the opposite because those of us on the side of common sense have always said that segregating sports based on sex has nothing to do with transgenderism."

It absolutely does! For example, in England trans people were banned from competing in the female category of professional darts. How exactly do trans people have a "biological advantage" in throwing a tiny sharp stick at a target? That story and many others like it show the absurdity of this whole "debate" around woman's sports. It's not about protecting women, it's about bigotry.

This entire thing doesn't really matter though because it ignores the fact that trans athletes go through years of hormone therapy and oftentimes surgery which take away whatever "advantage" they might have possessed. Lots of transwomen have won in women's sports and lots of transwomen have lost in women's sports. Mainly because that's just how sports work!

Oh well, we now know Matt's for discriminating intersex people as well as trans people. At least his bigotry is....consistent I guess? God, I hate this guy. Next clip!

08:43, Matt Walsh: "But if you think that, you know, violent episodes like this are gonna make the trans activists admit that they're, you know, wrong and so wrong that now actual women are being endangered and of course actual women have been endangered by this for a while now, you should know that there is precisely zero chance of that, they're not going to admit anything."

This is just dehumanizing bigotry meant to paint trans people as "the other" and as some evil group trying to endanger women for kicks. This kind of rhetoric is how hate crimes end up happening and Matt knows it.

Matt's also mad at JK Rowling because her particular form of transphobia calls transphobia a "men's rights movement", which is a clear effort to erase trans identity but Matt's too thick to get that she's on his side, but since a big part of Matt's whole identity is whinging about how men are "oppressed" he basically throws a little tantrum about how she's being mean to the manosphere.

11:02, Matt Walsh: "The problem with Rowling's attempt to blame this on the mens rights movement, whatever that is, is that first of all there is no men's rights movement, at least not one with any degree of power right now."

The manosphere is a thing that exists. Just look at the success of Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, and even the subject of this post Matt Walsh who regularly parrots manosphere talking points on his show. These people exist and have a lot of influence on the internet which in turn gives them influence in the real world. Essentially, Matt has totally missed the point of what Rowling is saying, which is also disgusting bigoted garbage but the point still stands, I guess this is what happens when you're so wrapped up in your "masculinity" that you become blinded to reality.

I also think that this is definitely something that shows how BS JK Rowling's whole "feminist" schtick is. Never mind that delegitimizing transwomen is inherently misogynistic at it's core, the people that Rowling's allying herself with because of her obsession with trans people hate feminism and women's rights. Here we have a "feminist" allying herself with misogynists and for what? Is the existence of trans people that much of a threat? Don't believe me? Here's Matt Walsh saying that he hates feminism and women's rights literal seconds after the last clip.

11:42, Matt Walsh: "Instead what we saw in Paris this week is a natural consequence, not of mens rights or the patriarchy, it's a natural consequence of the ideology that feminists have been pushing for decades. It was feminists who argued that sex differences are mostly social constructs that are exploited by patriarchal oppressors. Feminists are the ones who laid the groundwork for the idea that there's no job a man can't do that a woman can't do better, OK? They came up with that! Men and women are equal, they can do the same things, genders a social construct, that came from feminism and once you believe that lie you get this. You get women in the boxing ring with men getting violently assaulted."

There's so much wrong with this that it's hard to unpack in one go. The disgusting transphobia, the blatant misogyny, the fact that he handwaved men and women being equal as a "lie". If anything, this is more proof that transphobia and misogyny are directly intertwined.

On a smaller scale, it also goes to show you how much of an absolute douche-canoe Matt Walsh is. However, that particular topic is a recurring theme on this blog so regular readers probably won't be too surprised by that.

Conclusion:

Boy oh boy, starting off with a bang after my holiday ended. Matt Walsh sucks, JK Rowling sucks, that weird antisemitic guy that Walsh cited as a source sucks, this whole discourse around Imane Khelif sucks, everything about this sucks.

While we definitely did approach some of this from Matt's own terms by looking at the actual definition of intersexuality and the stuff about Khelif's gender test, it's important to look at what guys like Matt Walsh actually mean when they talk about stories like this.

Matt doesn't give a crap about Olympic boxing nor does he give a crap about the "sanctity of women's sports". The dude literally stated in his show supposedly about defending women's sports that men and women being equal is a lie. Matt Walsh is just a bigot with a microphone using this story to spew hatred towards a group he's built his career around othering and the thing that he's actually saying is that he wants those groups that he hates so much excluded from the public life.

Original Video:

“Ep. 1414 - Wokeness Turns the Olympics into a Farce.” Dailywire.com, The Daily Wire, 2 Aug. 2024.

Sources:

Halpern, D. F., et al. “The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling.” Science, vol. 333, no. 6050, 22 Sept. 2011, pp. 1706–1707.

World Population Review - Intersex people.

The UN Commission for Human Rights' definition on intersexuality.

Article refuting false claims about Hitler's Jewish Heritage

“What Is the IBA? Governing Body behind Olympic Boxing Storm Has Russian Ties, Troubled History.” PBS News, 4 Aug. 2024.

"IBA gender tests on two boxers were flawed and illegitimate, says IOC." Reuters, 5 Aug. 2024.

“Testosterone Therapy: Potential Benefits and Risks as You Age.” Mayo Clinic

Hansford, Amelia. “Trans Darts Player Left “Broken” after Tournament Ban.” PinkNews.

[weirdowithaquill]

Hello Weirdo! I hope all is well on your end✨

Coming off of reading “The Ffestiniog engines,” I was actually a bit surprised at how some aspects of Duke’s treatment/relationships with his classmates (Those are NOT his siblings dammit) matched with some stray headcanons I came up with for if CR no. 123 (The ‘Caledonian Single’) was a character in the RWS/ERS-verse.

This unique engine was initially built as an exhibition piece to represent the Caledonian Railway and its Chief Engineer at the International Expo of industry, science and art. So that means looking fancy and maybe pulling some coaches for show. And that got me thinking……if the engine is sentient, how would that affect it?

Like I was thinking, would this guy get lonely? He doesn’t have any siblings, and his intended purpose might’ve resulted in him getting isolated from the rest of his relatives and most other engines. And given that he wasn’t built to work, would said relatives think poorly of him? Kinda like the same mindset the rest of the George Englands have towards Duke being built to win a competition. Like “While we’re out here actually doing the work, he was built to just sit there and look pretty for the humans.” Might also result in him having poor mental health. And since he was constructed during the Victorian era, when attitudes towards that sorta thing were not very charitable…..I don’t think any mental health issues he may or may not have would be taken seriously, especially if like in your book about Duke’s origins, owners believe in the notion that “Engines should be seen and not be heard.” I can also kinda see him not having the greatest social skills around other engines?

But hey, no. 123 did eventually gain fame during the Race to the North in 1888, and even after grouping, proved to be a fast and reliable engine when put into regular service, and was the last Single-type express engine running in the UK. So I guess he got the last laugh.

Or maybe this is just me being unnecessarily angsty about an engine 😅

Hi!

"I hope all is well on your end" - well... I got sick literally the same day I got this ask and spent the last 3 or so days in bed. Whoops...

Anywho! Caledonian 123 is such an interesting locomotive, and I feel like you've really given a lot of thought to how the poor engine being the only member of their class would affect them - though if I may, I'd like to throw out a slightly alternative idea.

Stick with me!

Ok - so CR. 123 was built in 1886 for a major international exhibition being held in Edinburgh. And back then, these international exhibitions were big deals for railway companies. The LBSCR sent multiple engines abroad (such as LBSCR Edward Blount) to win medals at these international exhibitions. And while the Edinburgh exhibition wasn't quite as big or grand as the Paris exhibition, it was a matter of railway (and national) pride for the Caledonian to send a locomotive.

This all wouldn't mean quite so much if CR. 123 hadn't won a gold medal at said exhibition, which would have - to the Victorian engines - been paramount to winning the train Olympics. CR. 123 instantly becomes the biggest star on the line (much to the enragement of the 66 Class 4-4-0s that felt like this 'modern relic' shouldn't have represented the railway).

This stardom is only improved when CR. 123 becomes practically the only Caledonian engine upholding the railway's honour during the Race to the North of 1888. Due to their fast speed and surprising strength (they could climb to Beattock Summit, which is the highest point on the entire WCML), they would only improve their image. After all, both the exhibition and the Race occur within two years of each other, and would probably have defined Caledonian Railway spirit for a generation of engines.

Then, they go on to become the favoured pilot engine for the Royal Train, which often travelled via the Caledonian Railway to get to Balmoral Castle - which would have been the highest of honours during the Victorian era.

And so CR. 123 becomes something of a Caledonian Railway star.

Note I said Caledonian Railway.

Once the Grouping happens, Caledonian engines were some of the first on the chopping block on the LNWR and MR dominated LMS. And while the Midland engines (which would've included the Johnson Spinners at this time) would have been more amenable to CR. 123 than the LNWR, by the time 1930 rolls around and CR. 123 is put into service as a regular engine again - they're all gone too. It's only the newer, bigger, English engines.

And I think it's in this time period: 1930 to 1935, when CR. 123 is painted in LMS black and running regular services as an outcast on the network, that they suffer from mental health issues. Especially cause this is the Great Depression era, when the elegance and showmanship of the Victorian railways is long gone and replaced by efficiency and hardline competition.

CR. 123 would likely gain a lot more popularity in 1935 when their image is revamped by the LMS (which is about to preserve the old engine) to become a symbol of the West Coast - East Coast rivalry.

But that's just my thoughts! CR. 123 is such a beautiful and fascinating engine, and this ask made me do some research into them (and by extension World Expositions - did you know that the LBSCR B1 Edward Blount and the Eiffel Tower both won gold medals at the same Exposition Universelle of 1889?)

Thank you for sharing your headcanon, and for putting up with mine!

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

So, I'm watching a show called Oshi No Ko. And the story is a pretty complicated one. It focuses on the kids of an Idol. One who was extremely famous for a long time.

This screen shot, is from the most recent episode and got me to start thinking. We really do tend to be heartless monsters sometimes. I lose my head sometimes but I will often refrain from stuff that goes further than "Fuck You" or "Fuck off". Why? Because I want to be better than the worst of the things I see around me.

I saw this and watch as the episode progressed. It focuses on a very earnest girl that isn't the most pretty and doesn't stand out well. This despite being in the entertainment industry. An accident happens on set and as some fandoms do, they went straight for the throat. Moments later you hear rumor monologue which produces these:

And when I saw these my first thought was, "Oh......she's going to take her own life". Because the scene lasted for so long. She was trying so hard to just do her best. Except even if you take this away from Japan and look around the globe, we're all pretty fucked.

We took the idea of being anonymous with us from the birth of the internet, and now we walk around with are noses in the sky as if we own everything. Now a days you can just say whatever you want. And another thing dawned on me during this line of thought. "This is why it's so easy for people to dehumanize everyone they don't like nowadays. This is why it's so easy to see a person throwing a birthday party at a park, get pissed of that they are happy and you aren't and get them mobbed by claiming 'Nazis' knowing good well they probably aren't." It reminded me of this scene from a silent voice.

This is how we see people online. Not as real life people who have their own lives, thoughts, feelings, and circumstances. We see them as invalids who if they don't placate us, they are worth less than nothing. I keep up with people online and I can separate fantasy from reality. More than I can say for so many others. And I normally do not attack people so much as I just levy criticism of their views. Mostly only when it comes to things I find important.

However, I try to flush out my point in a way that is actual criticism, rather than something hateful or scornful. I'm not saying I always succeed in that. I do try though.

If I'm being honest. People who are depressed need to not be on social media at all. They need to seek IRL help. And we need to get back to a time we saw people as people. Once upon a time, there was a notion known as "Talk shit, get hit". Because no matter how you felt, being a punk wasn't acceptable. Now, not only is it acceptable. It's promoted, rewarded, and pushed as the norm. I now understand on a more foundational level why I see people say things like, "kys" in anonymous asks or similar things.

It's because they don't understand humanity at all. Moreover, their only experiences with "humanity" are fake interactions they have online. People being bots. And not in the sense of being "fake" so much as they are constructed versions of who they think others want them to be. They are bots in the sense that they are a robot, with a mask of their own face. Programmed to look as good an acceptable as possible.

Hell.....this is frankly hard to write about. And in truth, this message may land on deaf ears. I might not be able to save anyone or make people second guess sending disgusting levels of hate to others. Hell half the time I don't think I'll be able to save myself from the bottomless well I seem to feel like I'm drowning in almost every single day. When I'm mad most times. It's normally because I've seen the effects of things i'm talking about in my own life or the lives of those around me.

Realize that no matter how much you may think you hate another person......on the other side of that screen is a person just like you. They may be ignorant. They may be stupid. They may be downright appalling. They are still human.

Now I'm going to stop writing this before I'm overwhelmed with the worst parts of myself and I'll instead leave this.

[femboy-expert]

not saying you are one obviously because yeah, but a lot of the people genuinely pushing for gender abolition are TERFs as they want everyone to be just their “birth sex” (the reasons for them saying stuff like “a woman is an adult human female”)

the problem with that is, well, gender was always associated with birth sex. And all they are basically saying is no gender roles or hierarchy which… people who are trans accepting still don’t like gender roles or the patriarchy (I am nonbinary trans guy). Basically, they aren’t actually saying anything revolutionary, and want people to be reduced to their sex.

however, I feel like what went wrong in their conclusion is obvious. And that is when discussing the concept of birth sex.

As them saying being a woman is being an “adult human female” is, as said before, still upholding gender. As, again, gender has been attributed to sex already by the western world for a long time. And some people have only found out about our history existence a decade or two ago.

so, my point is… when we talk about gender abolition… is it really gender you want to abolish in it as a social construct? As maintaining this concept of sex reduction to be all to go by is still upholding already present ideas of sex and gender.

But it is this concept of sex reduction that is the actual answer here. In separating gender from sex, what liberation would mean would be to abolish the concept of sex.

Not that, obviously, sexual characteristics do not exist and there is not a tendency of common grouping of characteristics (though the groups are still not perfect and is not as binary and solid as people act like it is)

But eradicating the concept of sex, in this case, means there is no assignment given of said preconceived notion of what “male” or “female” is like. Eradicating it means to phase out the binary grouping of characteristics to blanket apply and label onto people at birth and on documentations. To no longer be assigned a sex when you are born, and in this not to be assigned a set of gender roles or expectations you are expected to comply to

So ultimately, the answer that lies more into the realm of possibility, what does not hurt trans people and that would actually make a revolutionary change in regards to gender and being freed of gender roles is to eliminate sex assignment and labeling and allow individual experiences of gender to be limitless

and so when one is born, they do not say “it’s a girl!” Nor “it’s a boy!” instead to simply go “it’s a baby!”

(in terms of medical questions… I mean that is between you and a doctor and not everyone else. but because of intersex people and just overall sex differences, it should really just be listed down as what sex characteristics are present)

sex abolition and gender liberation 😎 the only kind of sex we need is the act of getting down in whatever way makes cishets mad

Yeah that sounds epic just list down the characteristics

Also can we do stuff that makes the terfs mad 🥺

[haleigh-sloth]

I feel kinda weird when people are like "Shigaraki is a grown adult and needs to be held accountable even if you feel bad for his child self". Not in a poor little meow meow way. People need to take accountability for causing harm even when it's a result of mental illness. But the manga has always been clear that he didn't develop right? Like it's weird to expect him to shake off years of grooming when he hit 18. This is difficult to put into words without sounding like I am making excuses lol

I mean, you really don't even have to make excuses for him. The story is working toward forgiving him pretty blatantly without the excuses.

It's a story. A story exists to explore ideas. A story like BNHA explores ideas that are based off of our reality, but because of the sheer fact that it is a fantasy story, the exploration of those ideas will be quite exaggerated, and in turn, unrealistic.

That's why when people say shit like "He should be held accountable for his actions", I just eye roll. They're wanting a realistic telling of how criminals we are familiar with are treated. And to that I say--find something else to read, because you don't deserve the story for what it is.

In our reality, there is no real way to "redeem" oneself after ending other peoples' lives. I mean, no there just isn't. But in fiction ideas are exaggerated.

In FMA Scar murdered like...close to 40, if not 40+ people in a fucking military state country that committed genocide against his race. Scar helped save the country from demise, and then was offered a position to help the military that massacred his people. And then that same military started working to rebuild his country, just like that. Would Scar face the same fate in our reality? Fucking no. But it's a story that explores the idea of what certain situations DO to a person, what it can lead a person to do.

Now let's apply that to Shigaraki.

Gonna repeat myself--they're wanting a realistic telling of how criminals we are familiar with are treated.

Shigaraki has killed many many maaaanyyyyy people. Oof, so many. Pretty bad, yeah?

But Shigaraki's position in BNHA is a challenge to the main character to deliver a certain theme that the story has centered itself around. And with that, what has Shigaraki personally done to the main character? Not really much. Bakugo doesn't count, because for one: Bakugo isn't even gonna stay dead, but for two: it's not even Shigaraki specifically who is responsible right now. And no I don't mean fighting. That's circumstantial with them being a hero and a villain.

What I'm getting at is that Shigaraki's character, his arc, and his actions were all constructed a very specific way so that a different character could deliver the themes of the story hand in hand with Shigaraki at a certain level of ease. I say that because it doesn't have to be realistic. It needs to be convincing.

Realistically, Shigaraki would have been killed, detained, what the fuck ever. There'd be no happy ending in sight. He's done.

But this is BNHA, where the notion of a true hero exists, and such an idea is based around saving someone's existence in every way. It's an exaggerated idea that you won't ever see in your lifetime, in our reality. But in a story that wants to explore the idea of saving someone no matter what, because that someone is in pain and they as a human being matter, these ideas are convincing.

Yeah mental illness is not an excuse for harming someone. God fucking bless, I have been living this statement every day at my job currently. But that's not what the story is asking you to consider.

It's asking you to consider if Shigaraki is worth saving behind the monstrous cover he is wearing right now, because deep down he isn't a monster. He's just a person who is feeling anything and everything in the worst way.

The realistic aspects that you're talking about --I would say Horikoshi utilized very realistic trauma reactions to make the character convincing.

But imo the whole "he didn't develop right" argument is kinda moot, cuz that's not the question the story is asking. That's just the realistic part of the character that makes the resolution the story is building up toward (saving regardless of actions) convincing.

Realistic things can be used to make a character and a story convincing. But a story does not have to portray realism to be convincing. It just needs to follow up on the ideas it put in place.

For BNHA, if Izuku saves Shigaraki with the same mindset that he used to save Bakugo, Shouto, Iida, Kota, and Eri---then it's convincing. Because that's an idea about Izuku's character that has been implanted since chapter one.

Izuku saving Shigaraki after all the mass murder and destruction is not realistic by any means.

But because of the way Shigaraki's character has been constructed (a mess of emotions that makes it impossible for him to say what he really wants--which is for a hero to save him) and the way Izuku's character has been constructed (a hero who decides to save someone without them asking for it), it will be convincing.

You can make excuses but tbh, you don't need to. It's not necessary imo.

[kyliafanfiction]

Sophia is a made up fictional Black person, not an actual human being. She's eViL because Wildbow is a white supremacist, and if you fall for it, so are you.

Uhm...

I mean, she's not real, that's true, and she's a psycho because Wildbow wrote her that way, that's true (That is how fictional characters work) but it doesn't follow inherently from there that Wildbow is a white supremacist.

That's a lot of assumptions and leaps of logic you just glide over. Writing a character who is black as a psycho is not inherently racist. There's some racist stereotyping baggage in how he describes Sophia sometimes, true, but that's more 'accidental linguistic baggage in the English speaking world due to longstanding heavy racism and still present low-key racism nearly omnipresent in our society' than deliberate malice

I don't think the evidence supports the idea that Wildbow is any more racist than your average well-intentioned nominally progressive white canadian guy who doesn't self-examine much.

Which is to say he no doubt has unexamined baggage and notions, but he does try and he certainly isn't white supremacist.

Also, like, what do you mean by 'fell for it'? She's fake. All she exists as is the writing on the page. There's no deeper reality there than what she has on the page. It's fun to construct deeper realities for characters using the text (as I do for Amy), and if you want to do that for Sophia, sure, go for it, but the text as written, the character as she exists, is pretty fucking delusional.

We can discuss whether or not writing a character like Sophia represents some broader issues, especially when you add in characters like Skidmark and Thomas Calvert and how they're written, etc, but the character herself is still a fucking psycho.

Not sure I can really call this 'hate' because it's not, per se, but it definitely gets a -5/10 for just... generalized stupidity.

[kendrixtermina]

Our Governments are not representative of us, nor of our cultures.

The Nation-State was probably the single worst idea in all of humanity, and both the current conflict & the discourse around it really shows why

Before they came up with that in the 19th century, people may have identified themselves with their language, religion, culture or attachment to the region, but not by a "nation" of people thought to have shared traits. At the time of the French revolution, most people in France didn't speak French, and in 1900 some ppl in sicily had no idea what "Italy" is.

A while ago ppl were surprised about a farmer on TV who said he doesn't particularly care if his town is in "Russia" or "Ukraine" he just wants to live there in peace. But until 200 years ago or so, that is how most people thought of home.

Certainly basic xenophobia, tribalism & fear of the other existed before, there were, after all, persecutions in the middle ages. But the construct of nation has nonetheless made conflicts massively worse & more deadly.

It's based on an Illusion

There is this idea that peoples have always existed as some unchanging, unmingling "pure" group on one piece of land that is tainted or adulterated by contact with others.

Even on the left some ppl just uncritically accept this notion (see much of the discourse about 'cultural appropriation')

That was just never true - people have always been copying each other, migrating, trading, interacting etc. often new cultures arose or peoples changed where they lived; Borders shifted over time. And of course, culture evolved over time.

When people think that a state that is an illusion is what naturally should be, and try to adjust reality to the fake model in their head, ugly things happen.

Homogenous groups on a fixed patch of land are not the reality of how cultures work, but if ppl think they are, they enact violence to artificially create those homogenous patches neatly delineated by lines. You get silly disputes about "who was there first", expulsion of minorities and conflicts when people try drawing lines in areas with mixed populations.

The Nazis, the Balkan wars & Israel represent the peak excesses of the madness that can lead to. (and note that 20 years or so after the Nazis fell, tons of immigrants moved into Germany & the artificial homogenity collapsed again, because it's just not natural. Israel will never suceed at their homogenous country either.)

It leads to generalization

There's a really shitty trope in european newspapers sometimes that has much been criticised.

If the article says "Guy robs bank" then people will think he's a bad guy.

If the article says "Turkish guy robs bank" it will get ppl frothing about how immigrants are bad guys. In case of the non-immigrant robber, they don't even bother to write "German guy robbs bank"

That's how you see these shitty responses that when there's a war, random ppl from the involved countries get attacked. China does shit & ppl bother random Chinese.

With the current war, jews & arabs around the world are being harassed.

What can some ordinary shopkeeper Yacob Shmitz in New York do about Netanyahu? What does Khalil Mansoor in Berlin got to do with October 7th? Nothing at all.

This leads ppl to completely overlook all context to look at some ppl as always being victims or perps or otherwise all the same, regardless of context. For example I once heard an Indian acquaintance raving about "the muslims" & how they "want everything" & making wild conflations. A Palestinian living in Al-Quds/Jerusalem wants it probably because he lives there & probably doesn't even know about the contentious site in India, and he was treating as the same people that are wildly different: Powerful elites in Saudi Arabia & persecuted minorities in India & Palestine, arabs in the ME and southeast asians in Pakistan.

Later he went to a Pakistan-themes party & was surprised to wind that culturally they got more in common wit him than arabs despite the different religions. They liked similar music, food & sports.

Or people today feeling guilty & ashamed now for what the Nazis did. Did you, personally, throw people in gas chambers? No? Then what shame is it of yours? Everyone who did it is dead & buried & being roasted in hell if it exists.

To me, this completely destroys the very system of morality. Morality only makes sense if a person can only be blamed or held responsible for what they can personally influence & change. If you're deemed "bad" based on things you can't control, what's the incentive of being good?

Or, you can't criticize some countries cause people take it personally - it's an insult to their identity, their whole culture... which brings me to the next & imho main point.

It conflates people, culture & government

A wise guy in Iran once said that "the difference between you & me is much smaller than you & your government, and our governments are much the same". I wish more ppl listened to him.

There have been greedy leaders looking to enrich themselves pretty much since they invented agriculture. but they spoke for themselves or their supporters.

With Nation-States, it gets assumed that the government speaks not only for the people, but that is somehow represents their values & culture.

All this political & war propaganda isn't really what culture is. Culture is conventions and books and food and little stories and sayings and values that give things meaning. But when someone says "fuck the Muslims/USA/jews/Germans" etc the other side feels like the actual culture, the small & beautiful & meaningful & enlightened things are what's being attacked. Because it's conflated.

Leaders will of course claim to justiy their actions by whatever values are popular with their subjects, but that doesn't mean they actually represent those values.

Look at your own leaders: How much do they support the values you believe in? How much do they do lip-service to that culture without really living up to it?

So you get ppl seeing governments do shit & thinking "fuck all those jews/americans/westerners, they must be demons" and Israelis killing all the ppl in Gaza because of "Hamas".

It's that same logical leap of not just leaders = people, but leaders = culture & values.

Now leaders of course have coalitions of supporters whether it's a bunch of oligarch or a popular movement - active supporters are 100% on the hook for what the government does. The mocking song singers are to blame for Netanyahu & the red hat guys for Trump, and Biden... I mean, it's probably the DNC & some political establishment ppl who wanted him cause no one else really did.

But political coalitions =/= all the people =/= all the "culture".

The evil acts of government are usually the products of greedy leaders and a coalition of supporters, not whole populations or cultures.

The difference between people & political establishment has never been more obvious than now

Case in point: Mainstream news outlets are struggling to explain away why there is 15 times more pro-palestine content being posted on the internet, some getting conspiratorial or frantically attributing it to "iran propaganda", but the true reason is that, as surveys also show, no one outside of Israel wants this fucking war but a few old men with imperialist ambitions & weapons companies.

much of it is ignorance, inertia, & propaganda calculated to work on influential because because theyre influential & fear looking bad.

our cultures may differ but very few cultures would last long if they condoned this kinda shit. Different cultures may give different reasons & many have their flaws of bothersome elements, but i dare say most would on average come down on rejecting this.

Let's not believe the lie that being for this is based on any kind of values, not western ones or any other. They might say it is to sell their bullshit but it's just liars & cowards adapting their lies to the audience.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

The New Pride | Andrew Doyle & Peter Boghossian

“Is the trans movement anti-gay?” In honor of Pride Month, Peter Boghossian begins this conversation with an investigation into the increasing rejection of trans ideology by the LGB (without the T) community. Peter’s guest is Andrew Doyle, acclaimed author, comedian, and host of Free Speech Nation on GB News. Here’s an important piece of information to better understand this conversation: Andrew is gay. Andrew explains the impact the trans movement has inflicted on gay people over the last several years, including the rise of abusive language toward gays he “hasn’t seen since the ‘80s." Lesbians are labelled “sexual racists” or “transphobes” if they reject trans women as partners. (The same is true for gay men rejecting trans men—that is, women—but the abuse is not as pervasive.) Peter and Andrew discuss the incoherence of gender ideology, the nature of sexual attraction, how predators manipulate gender self-ID, and the sterilization of gay youth. Also discussed: Bad woke art, sensitivity readers, primary education, censorship, standpoint epistemology, critical thinking, the long history of human fantasy and folly, and more. Andrew Doyle is a journalist, playwright, satirist, and comedian. He is the creator of Titania McGrath, “a radical intersectionalist poet committed to feminism, social justice and armed peaceful protest.” He is the host of Free Speech Nation and an unabashed lover of art and literature.

--

Peter Boghossian: Is the trans movement anti-gay?

Andrew Doyle: In its current manifestation, yes. So, not trans people are anti-gay, but the predominant cheerleaders of trans activism in its most extreme form are most definitely anti-gay. Because the movement at present -- and it wasn't always this way, only over the past five, six years -- is now completely underpinned by the notion of gender identity ideology.

The concept of gender identity is a difficult one because no one ever defines it, least of all the activists themselves. The best we can come to is a kind of feeling, a kind of sense, of who you are and a sense of an authentic self.

Helen Joyce in her book "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality," describes it as something akin to a sexed soul, which actually is very close to what certain trans activists have described it as. So, because it's not really pinned down definitionally, what we get, the most useful way of thinking about it is is that sense of self within, which is gendered. And whenever you try to get people to define it, they will say things like "I am a woman because I feel like a woman," which leads to a subsequent question, "but what is a woman," and then it's "whoever defines themselves as a woman," so we're in the realm of identity politics.

But gender identity ideology effectively is about ensuring that gender, as in the concepts of masculinity and femininity and stereotypical behaviors of what it means to be male and female, that those things are prioritized over biological sex.

And you even have, of course, activists again on the extreme side, who now pushed for the idea that not only is gender socially constructed, as in boys wear blue and girls wear pink - well there's nothing innate about that, is there - so there are certain modes of behavior that men and women have that are certainly socially constructed, there are others that are rooted in biology. But there's a great deal that is to do with social constructs.

But some activists will now say that even biological sex itself is a social construct. There's no really authentic way -- they've been saying that for many decades by the way, you've had voices in academia saying that for a long long time, even when I was at University, so there's nothing new about that; it's not true and it's never been true -- but it's now taken hold in society as though it is.

Peter: So, two things. One throwaway: one of the fake papers that Jim and I wrote, we titled it "Pre-epistemic Transgenderism." Since gender is a social construct and sex is a social construct -- this is so the argument goes -- no one ever truly knows their gender until after they've transitioned right, if we just remove the genitals from everybody, or if we just allow them to -- I can't remember what age it was -- you know at 12, they would transition, then they would know if that was a good thing or not. Yeah, pre-epistemic transgenderism.

[..]

So, what is anti-gay?

Andrew: Right, so that's the -- you asked whether it was anti-gay and I didn't really explain that.

So, the reason why it's anti-gay is because gay rights were secured through the recognition that there were always in any given society and culture a minority of individuals who are innately attracted to members of their own sex.

The debate about how that develops within individuals, that's a bigger debate and it's nothing to do with this. The fact is that there are a minority of people who are instinctively, innately attracted to members of their own sex. And that gay rights were secured by getting people to understand that.

Now you have groups like Stonewall, who's the UK's foremost LGBT charity, redefining the word homosexual to mean "same gender attracted."

That's not what it means. It's not homogendered, it's homosexual. It's people being attracted -- so a gay man isn't attracted to someone who identifies as a man they're attracted to men. Similarly, lesbians are attracted...

Peter: So, I just need to disambiguate. They're attracted to, and I'm trying to think about -- there's just no other way to say this without being vulgar. So, I'll put it on myself -- heterosexual is attracted to a natal woman or a person with a vagina.

Andrew: Right.

Peter: A gay person is attracted to a man that is in a natal, a biological -- someone born biologically male with a penis.

Andrew: Quite. But you see, extreme trans activists will twist that and say well, why are you obsessed with genitals, and they will then say that genital preferences are transphobic. But of course, you're not solely attracted to genitals. That is of course a part of the whole, part of everything that you are attracted to.

The idea that you're attracted to how someone perceives themselves doesn't make any sense whatsoever in terms of sexual attraction.

And it gets worse than that. Because Stonewall not only redefine the term, but then you have the CEO of Stonewall, Nancy Kelley, comparing lesbians who don't want to date people with penises, comparing them to "sexual racists," saying that if you're writing off whole groups of people, a whole demographic out of your dating pool, you want to examine your prejudice and you want to examine where that bigotry came from.

But a lesbian writing off men from a dating pool isn't bigotry, it's homosexuality. So it's very, very serious when effectively the whole precept of of homosexual rights has been drawn away, taken away.

And you've even got trans activists now who talk about how lesbians who don't want to sleep with someone who identifies as a woman but has a penis, that they are suffering from some kind of trauma. That's the phrase they use. They say this is an example of trauma.

And of course that's -- I mean the WHO perceived homosexuality to be a mental disorder as late as 1990. That's what they used to say to gay people, you're suffering from some kind of trauma , you're suffering some from some kind of mental illness. You're a gay boy so all you need to do is find the right girl. Or vice versa. And that's exactly what trans activists are saying.

Now there was a website called Woke Homophobia which collected thousands and thousands and thousands of screenshots of trans activists attacking gay people. The website has since been deleted, which is a shame that no one archived it, because people don't believe this. But there are, it's not just one or two people on Twitter. There are thousands of these people using the kind of language that I haven't seen since the 80s about gay people, talking about faggots, about how AIDS was a good thing, gay people should die.

I did a tweet the other day which was, it was a monologue that I did on my show about the pride flag. [..] And I put out a thing about how pride no longer represents gay people.

I got attacked from both the right and the left, or at least people who identify as right and left, I should qualify. I got attacked by outright right-wing reactionary homophobes calling me a sodomite, you know, saying that it is degraded you know, degeneracy is the word they like to use they also use. Like to spell the word "return" with a V instead of a u to invoke in Roman numerals this idea of this Grand Roman tradition. Believe me, if they went back to Rome they might not like it. But anyway, so those idiots you know you just block and move on.

And then similarly, I was being attacked by gender ideologues who identify as being on the left. Their responses were slightly worse because I had two of them saying I should kill myself, calling me a cis gay, saying cis gays like this should kill themselves, and another one called me a faggot, and that was coming from someone who says they're left wing.

Now that -- I've never heard that kind of language, not since I was a small child. It's sort of been out of our society for about 15 years that kind of stuff. But now that kind of virulent homophobia is coming from trans activists.

Peter: So, why are they calling you, what, why are they, why?

Andrew: Because they fundamentally believe that to be gay is transphobic. They don't say it that way, but what they are saying is that if you are writing off -- if I as a male and writing off women who identify as men okay then I am transphobic.

[tanadrin]

A lot of this feels connected to how annoying the idea of “nations” are. Like, they’re clearly based on something there, but it’s also safe to say they’re still largely bullshit. People develop unique ways of expressing themselves, and as they are a very social creature, people in geographical proximity will develop similar ways of expressing themselves. This is what can be pointed to when we talk about “nations”. But the idea that these can be clearly delineated, and physical and ideological lines drawn between various nations, is a fiction.

However, the Nation State relies upon this notion, and its hard to figure out a political system better than the nation state. The major historical comparison are kingdoms, built on personal ownership of land, obviously bad. Theocracies, a cousin of nation states, are similarly so. There’s the millet model, States allowing relative national autonomy, but that just leaves you with all the Nations States faults and less of its successes. Communal confederacies like the Haudenosaunee offer a lot, but falter in internal cohesion, allowing them to collapse to outside agitators easily. A similar fate awaits most City States, arguably the most biological democracies, but impractical for the majority of the human population.

So we’re left with this idea that the legitimate power in a given area should be synonymous with a similar sense of peoplehood. This seems connected to democratic aspirations, but also forever leaves the door continuously open for fascistic interludes, the creation of a single nationhood using the full might of the State. I dunno, I know this is long winded, but I just feel so frustrated sometimes by how unidealistic politics is. Quite annoying!

yeah, the nation--while historically an effective vehicle for democratic aspirations in many countries--leaves a lot to be desired as a political construct. the identity-politics component of it makes it hard to dispense with entirely, but i actually have high hopes for internationalism and supranational institutions. like, the EU is an effective political bloc of highly-integrated nation-states, some of which were engaged in all-out war within living memory. i don't think the nation state needs to be, like, abolished in one fell swoop to mitigate its downsides (nor am i sanguine about the possibility), but it can be gradually integrated into other frameworks.

this is one reason, in fact, why the narrative of US exceptionalism and the reluctance of the US to engage in international institutions frustrates me so--the US could be a very powerful force for internationalism and cooperation in the world, if it was willing to engage more forthrightly in international institutions. ultimately this may just be politically and psychologically impossible for the leaders of any state which thinks of itself as a hegemon--it's not like the USSR was much better on this score--but the inability of the US to set aside its short-term interests, even when that would favor its longer-term interests, seems to me like it has really hampered the development of a strong rules-based international order in the post-cold war era.

[wizardwisenmore]

Hey, being a woman is NOT a purely social construct. You should hunt down whoever told you that lie and congratulate them for being an idiot.

Listen... I've been around this track a few times now. I know how this argument goes and I know how it ends and neither of us will wind up happy. But if you really wanna hear my thoughts, well, there's the read more.

Ultimately, what you need to know is any and all anti-transition rhetoric is based upon the same ideology that informs eugenics which stems from capitalism and racism, both of which are about obtaining means to control.

What do I mean by this? Eugenics and terf rhetoric are pseudo-sciences informed by the desired outcome rather than the collected data. Scientists (if you can really call them that) such as Samuel Morton had preconceived notions of race and thus spent accumulating "proof" such as the measurement of skulls to reinforce their racist point of views and position within society. With these so-called studies, they were able to strip less wealthy/fortunate individuals who didn't fit the ideal from rights and other civil liberties such as common respect. Similar types of "studies" that relate to this are the same as terfs being able to "tell" when someone is trans because of supposed more "masculine" or "feminine" features which are purely based upon western European "beauty" standards. This lead to the loss of genuine body autonomy for those individuals under the scrutiny of this rhetoric.

Body autonomy is an especially broad-reaching conversation but as these arguments tend tofocus on reproductive rights, let's look at that. The base idea of a woman (which from word roots does actually translate to "female person" but words change and develop so, "female" back then doesn't necessarily mean what it does today but that's a whole other convo) as an individual who can give birth stems from the time of serfdoms, feudal lords, etc. when keeping track of the bloodline was very important. So, those who controlled people who could essentially make new people were able to obtain greater power by more or less having control of the population itself. They controlled who could and who could not have children together.

We've made great strides in liberating that choice and made it so that those who were grouped together because of a biological asset have more control over it (though it's threatened now). Creating a more even playing field means that the line between one group and another has been increasingly blurred. Evolutionarily speaking, this is highly advantageous and stems from the development of higher thinking that spurs things such as math and philosophy and removes the class of people who were more or less mostly culturally intended to produce children when necessary.

This leaves the current classes of today which are high, middle, low, and no-income individuals within each class the ideal situation is that all individuals are of equal opportunity. However, having these economically reinforced classes doesn't actually permit equal opportunity. Capitalism, which is the root cause of this, reinforces these classes because a divided populace means a more marketable and therefore profitable population. Within capitalism, humans are very much a resource and so just as it was in the middle ages, being able to control those who can produce new people is a key to increased profits.

With how widespread commerce and trade are today, being able to cast a wider net is important when being able to sell goods. People aren't uniform though so it's difficult to be able to predict what people will buy beyond basic needs like food and water, but even those resources aren't safe from demographics. Demographics as you may know is the grouping of people into generalized categories like adult and child, men or women, yknow like the sections at target. Having more uniform demographics makes it easier to sell goods so having a "woman" demographic that's streamlined across certain biological needs, food, fashion, etc. creates an easier group to cater to. Thus, many companies fund those who reinforce this demographic, and many others like it.

However, people as a whole aren't streamlined and neither are they their biology. If you can grasp the concept that it's wrong to judge someone by the color of their skin then it shouldn't be too hard to acknowledge that it's unfair to judge someone by their genitalia. Which are abstract ideas that have affected culture for centuries now. So, "women are those who produce children" has been a very cultural interpretation of biology that has become obsolete. The only way to create true equality is by allowing full body autonomy and separating the idea of womanhood from biology. Defining women on the basis of biology restricts the definition itself because that ultimately reduces women to biological function rather than literally anything else like fashion, art, language, the list goes on.

Even biologically, humans have no true dichotomy. All the sex chromosomes do is produce one hormone or another be that estrogen or testosterone which creates physiological changes that present as the phenotype of the chromosomes. All humans have receptors for both hormones, that's why HRT works and if that's the true biological basis of what you consider man or woman, then we've already covered that. If you are considering the reproductive aspect then that draws issues within the means of fertility.

Even before modern transition methods, there have been those who have been able to live comfortably as a gender that differs from the one traditionally assigned to their sex at birth. And before you come in here with the "archaeologists will still be able to tell by your bones", as one who has studied archaeology I can tell you that those methods are spotty at best. What tells more about who the person was and how they operated in their society and culture is what is found buried with them such as clothes and religious artifacts.

So judging people upon a phenotype is deeply unfair. The true key to equality is being able to separate human identity from our biology. Who we are is not a reflection of what we are.

[gabriellaraelyn]

DANCE of the DAMNED' - The Hypocrisy of Capitalism & the Unfair Treatment of Women in Society

DANCE of the DAMNED official artwork.

For the third track on my upcoming experimental, 80s pop-inspired album, I decided to include the song 'DANCE of the DAMNED'. Now, I would say this song in particular really fleshes out the story of the 'Nephele' universe protagonist the most.

I named the song after a movie from 1989 of the same title, Dance of the Damned. It's about a suicidal stripper who accidentally winds up leading a bloodthirsty vampire into her home. It was the notion of being doomed that was the basis for my song.

Theatrical poster for Dance of the Damned (1989).

I then took the idea of my own contempt for capitalism and sexism in society and blended it into the lyrics, and what I ended up with was the story of Nephele, a stripper who dreams of fame and fortune, down on her luck, who holds deep disdain for the world she lives in. Due to her field of work, she distrusts and dislikes men very much.

The song itself is told as thoughts inside Nephele's head.

Don't do this for you, this is all for me, don't you see? Not for your eyes, it's my disguise to make myself feel complete. Empty inside so I don't care about your predatory stare. I'm getting mine just like you do, I do my dance and you throw me the cash.

When those men go to a strip club it's because they want something from a woman. They want her to put herself on display for their own enjoyment. But here, Nephele is taking the power back. She's saying, "this is my job, this is how I make money, you go to your job and make your money too, it's no different".

It's the dance of the damned, No matter what you do, you can't escape or erase it. You give yourself to the rhythm, you lose yourself in the making.

The 'dance of the damned' is the cycle that modern people find themselves living in--wake up, go to work, make money, sleep, do it all again. Jobs are taxing on the psyche in some way. Maybe it's customer service for someone really socially anxious, maybe it's (like Nephele) being a stripper performing for men one is disgusted by, maybe it's forsaking one's own integrity to lie and make a sale just so they can keep their job. It's all for the sake of money, a made-up construct that has somehow turned into the necessity to keep oneself afloat in today's world.

Silly me, that's what you think, because I exploit my body. Silly you because I took advantage of your lust. Easy money, it's just easy money. Sleazy money, it's all sleazy money.

Nephele recognizes that the men who go to watch her don't take her seriously, but she turns it around on them and says she doesn't take them seriously because it's so easy to play into their lust to get money. Wave yourself at them and they open their pockets.

I'm no different from you, I'm just getting all that I work for. The only thing about me, is that I don't deceive myself. But you men and your business, you cheat and scam and you lie. Your own humanity dies, you become deaf to the cries.

Nephele is saying that compared to what some of those business men do, hers is an honest living. They go out and destroy ecosystems with their oil rigs, they buy lands of forest to bulldoze and put more company buildings, they own factories that produce billions of waste that goes into the environment, slowly killing the planet--but somehow the fool is her because god forbid a woman do sex work, right?

It's this unfair dichotomy that I wanted to draw attention to, if not just to open the conversation. The expectations placed on women (as we are always painfully aware of) are quite hypocritical and flippant compared to the scrutiny that should be placed on the much bigger, more important and pressing issues.

If you made it this far down, thank you for reading. I hope you like my music if you decide to check it out, and if you do, consider pre-saving the new song I have coming out, 'the MUSIC MAN', out 9.15!

Keep in touch with me on other social platforms!

[iphigeniacomplex]

Let us be reminded that before there is a final solution, there must be a first solution, a second one, even a third. The move toward a final solution is not a jump. It takes one step, then another, then another. Something, perhaps, like this:

Construct an internal enemy, as both focus and diversion.

Isolate and demonize that enemy by unleashing and protecting the utterance of overt and coded name-calling and verbal abuse. Employ ad hominem attacks as legitimate charges against that enemy.

Enlist and create sources and distributors of information who are willing to reinforce the demonizing process because it is profitable, because it grants power and because it works.

Palisade all art forms; monitor, discredit or expel those that challenge or destabilize processes of demonization and deification.

Subvert and malign all representatives of and sympathizers with this constructed enemy.

Solicit, from among the enemy, collaborators who agree with and can sanitize the dispossession process.

Pathologize the enemy in scholarly and popular mediums; recycle, for example, scientific racism and the myths of racial superiority in order to naturalize the pathology.

Criminalize the enemy. Then prepare, budget for and rationalize the building of holding arenas for the enemy—especially its males and absolutely its children.

Reward mindlessness and apathy with monumentalized entertainments and with little pleasures, tiny seductions, a few minutes on television, a few lines in the press, a little pseudo-success, the illusion of power and influence, a little fun, a little style, a little consequence.

Maintain, at all costs, silence.

In 1995 racism may wear a new dress, buy a new pair of boots, but neither it nor its succubus twin fascism is new or can make anything new. It can only reproduce the environment that supports its own health: fear, denial and an atmosphere in which its victims have lost the will to fight.

The forces interested in fascist solutions to national problems are not to be found in one political party or another, or in one or another wing of any single political party. Democrats have no unsullied history of egalitarianism. Nor are liberals free of domination agendas. Republicans may have housed abolitionists and white supremacists. Conservative, moderate, liberal; right, left, hard left, far right; religious, secular, socialist — we must not be blindsided by these Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola labels because the genius of fascism is that any political structure can become a suitable home. Fascism talks ideology, but it is really just marketing — marketing for power.

It is recognizable by its need to purge, by the strategies it uses to purge and by its terror of truly democratic agendas. It is recognizable by its determination to convert all public services to private entrepreneurships; all nonprofit organizations to profit-making ones — so that the narrow but protective chasm between governance and business disappears. It changes citizens into taxpayers — so individuals become angry at even the notion of the public good. It changes neighbors into consumers — so the measure of our value as humans is not our humanity or our compassion or our generosity but what we own. It changes parenting into panicking — so that we vote against the interests of our own children; against their healthcare, their education, their safety from weapons. And in effecting these changes it produces the perfect capitalist, one who is willing to kill a human being for a product — a pair of sneakers, a jacket, a car — or kill generations for control of products — oil, drugs, fruit, gold.

When our fears have all been serialized, our creativity censured, our ideas "marketplaced," our rights sold, our intelligence sloganized, our strength downsized, our privacy auctioned; when the theatricality, the entertainment value, the marketing of life is complete, we will find ourselves living not in a nation but in a consortium of industries, and wholly unintelligible to ourselves except for what we see as through a screen darkly.

Toni Morrison's address at Howard University, 1995.