#tokenization fundamentals

[cacklefrendly]

yeah i guess the new album’s okay

[umilily]

i really am the definition of wasted potential.

[krabmeat]

slowly wanting to be away from this family more and more put me in the pound anywhere else is better

[threewaysdivided]

As someone who just recently rewatched some of young justice through clips on YouTube for nostalgia, perused a little around the tags and found the absolute goldmine of writing analysis in your blog I just wanted to say thank you! Your knowledge and your care for these characters really shines through and reflect some truths that I feel are more appropriate than ever: no one individual should be pedestaled for the success of a narrative, especially when he seems to misunderstand his own themes. It's very refreshing to see criticism so pointed and razor sharp, especially for a series I wish was better than it is. Your essays certainly gave me a lot to think about in my own writing!

Thank you! 💜 That’s really lovely of you to say.

It always makes me happy when someone stops by to tell me that they enjoyed/ got something out of my analytical posts.  Part of why I write things like the YJ Narrative Breakdown Essays is to get the thoughts out of my head, but a lot of it is that I want to share them with other fans who might feel similarly and want to talk. (I’m especially proud of the YJ: Invasion Case Study - it doesn’t get a lot of love because it’s so long but I’m super happy with how it came out as a capstone to the set.)  It’s really gratifying to hear that someone found them useful or that it helped articulate a feeling they were having or gave them some new concept/ framework to use when thinking about other stories.

If you want more Young Justice stuff, I’ve done some Season 1 metas on The Light, A Different Take on Martian Racism and Dick and Wally’s Friendship.  I also made a short list of other stories that I think capture similar vibes to Season 1 in aspects of their theming/ genre/ character-writing/ structure/ tone etc. which might help any lingering cravings.

I also have a general writing tag if you’re looking for writing discussions, as well as this resource primer for analytical readings.

pssst!  If you want to see me try to put some of these ideas into practice, I’m also writing a fic.  It’s a YJ crossover (canon-divergent post S1) and Arc II which started this year at Chapter 18 is intended to emulate some of the things I really liked about S1, including an overarching mystery and missions.

When it comes to pedestalling individuals, I completely agree.  I think Auteur Theory and Great Man Theory are mostly fallacious - not only in art but in general.  A lot of successes are collaborative (“self-made entrepreneurs” who were actually financially supported by family or succeeded through connections etc.) and, while the lone-visionary idea makes for a simple and compelling story,it can also cause IRL problems in how it disproportionately elevates certain voices, devalues less visible work and creates unrealistic expectations.  It’s good to have a healthy scepticism about those narratives, especially when they centre on people who already had privilege greasing their wheels.

I also think we often underestimate just how many people are involved in commercial art production.  Even Books (one of the closest mediums to sole-creator) often involve input from editors and possibly a publication house - as well as potential ghost-writers, co-writers etc.  Television teams can have dozens of staff across multiple production areas, and for big-budget films and AAA Games that number can balloon into the hundreds.

The role of developer/producer can be a real mixed bag in that space.  Some are close to the visionary/ auteur type - very involved with their teams and in steering the creative process - but others can be coattail-riders or even active liabilities that their teams have to work around.  (The Danny Phantom fandom has some real showrunner war-stories).  

Still, it’s easy to see how we could go from talking about a team lead/ spokesperson as convenient shorthand for the idea of The Author™, to accidentally treating that person like they are the only significant member and attributing all the credit to them personally.

Whether by accident or design, Greg Weisman definitely presents as the visionary type on the surface (something that the fandom and the wiki creators have unintentionally and well-meaningly contributed to).  His ask blog’s visual style certainly makes him look like The Gargoyles Guy™, and the Young Justice wiki editors put a lot of emphasis on him, often directly inserting information from there and his social media straight into main page content as “unconfirmed canon”.  That ask blog also creates a very parasocial environment; I’ve seen fans write posts like they’re talking to/ about him as a friend, and directly attribute specific lines or episodes directly to him.  To look at the wiki, his blog or hear the fandom talk he is the mind behind.

However, once you look closer, he has much fewer direct creative credits than you would expect for that reputation.

And, as it turns out, Young Justice is one of 3 separate series to see substantial drops in story quality after Weisman assumed control as primary writer, with common complaints including weak/inconsistent character-writing (even for characters he supposedly helped create), poor story structure and a seemingly shallow understanding of those stories as a whole.

Now, if it was just a case of Weisman just being a passionate doofus - someone sincerely having fun exploring ideas that interest him but who shouldn’t be left creatively unsupervised because he can’t hack it narratively - that would be frustrating but ultimately fine.  It happens.  Unfortunately though, there has been… quite a bit else that has pushed me more towards parasocial enemies territory.

As I’ve mentioned before, all three series contain instances of Weisman disempowering strong female characters; rewriting their narratives to centre on men and/or a sudden desire to conform to traditional gender roles.  Plus other sexism that resonates uncomfortably closely with pick-up-artist/ incel rhetoric.  His work on both Magic: the Gathering and YJ: Outsiders was also criticised for casually racist and overtly queerphobic writing - especially in his treatment of feminine bisexuals.  A lot of the most egregious instances can be found in the book - the medium where Weisman had the most direct creative input.  Weisman also doesn’t seem to understand the difference between organic character-conflict, manufactured “negative drama” and abuse - something that combines really badly with his seeming unawareness of the invasive implications of telepathy; which results in several telepaths being written as borderline predators/rapists, only for Weisman's narratives to either make no comment or take their side.

I also find his conduct very disingenuous.  I have no problem with ask blogs but the fact that over 80% of Young Justice’s critical narrative content can only be found there, and the implied attitude that fans who are surprised by the sudden appearance of information that was never previously set up in-story are at fault for not seeking it out strikes me as creatively dishonest.  I’m also not best pleased with his responses to the criticism over his insensitive writing (discussed above).  One instance that’s really emblematic to me is Weisman getting kudos for posting a snarky twitter-clapback to a bigot asking him to remove the diversity from Young Justice, despite himself having actively attempted to erase the sexuality of one of Magic: the Gathering’s fan-favourite queer characters (a scandal that made it onto his Wikipedia page).  Respect is something that really needs to be Shown not Told, and Weisman’s work frequently shows the complete opposite.

And look, I don’t know this guy; I can’t claim to understand what Weisman’s deal is or what’s going on in his head.  Maybe he’s always been like this and it just passed under the radar until recently because previous co-creators were skilled enough to pull him up with them.  Maybe he used to be better but let the success of other series he’s been involved in, and the showers of personal praise from his ask blog, go to his head.  Or it could be something else entirely.  I think the only answer we’re going to get is that we’re not going to get an answer.

Which is super disappointing and frustrating.  Like I said in this post, we come to stories in good faith; we want to put our trust in the promises made by the narrative, we want to be able to take the creators at face value, and we want to see the love and respect we have for their story and characters reflected in the effort they put into telling it.  Fandom in part reflects the passion creators have for their work, and when those creators start treating that work carelessly, cynically, or taking their audience for granted, the fandom can start to wane.  (Danny Phantom being one of the only communities I’ve seen thrive after completely severing ties with their producer.)

Circling back to the pedestal/auteur thing, I think that mindset makes it much easier to take this kind of thing personally when it happens.  It starts feeling like a single person chose to make all those promises and show that potential to you, only to intentionally betray them; rather than the Swiss-cheese model of compounding changes, failures, mistakes and/or poor choices from multiple people that more likely happened.

In these situations it helps to remember that we are the ultimate arbiter of our personal relationship to a story.  We don’t even have to be part of fandom; our fan experience can be just between us and the part of the work we found compelling, or us and a small group of buddies who feel similarly.  There’s no rule requiring us to perform fannishness or conform to the mainstream fandom consensus.  A good book/ game/ movie/ season/ comic can stand on its own, even with a few unresolved threads - we don’t have to personally accept subpar sequels, poor-quality prequels, rubbish retcons, superfluous side-content or extraneous add-ons just because they happen to exist.

a good plot was one which made good scenes. The ideal mystery was one you would read if the end was missing. -Raymond Chandler

There are fine things that are more brilliant when they are unfinished than when finished too much. - François de La Rochefoucauld

And, for stories that are created by multi-person teams, it can really help to change how we talk about them; to step away from that auteur mindset and start giving credit where it’s actually due.

So, in service to that, here is a breakdown of main episode credits for Young Justice Season 1:

Putting this together actually made me realise that I’d had too narrow of a focus; I’d previously speculated about changes to the writing staff but I completely overlooked the impact of episode directors. Which is nuts because directors can potentially have major influence over the structure and presentation of the finished narrative.

A few things strike me.  First is that Weisman doesn’t have a lot of direct writing credits; he has the most (albeit only by 1 episode) but it barely amounts to 25% of the season, and you can see that the specific episodes he scripted aren’t ones that put a lot of character focus on the main cast or paying off the emotional narrative.  (Which isn’t to claim that he wasn’t doing other developmental/ production work behind the scenes, but it does make sense; characterisation and narrative resolution are not things Weisman is good at).

The two names that really started to stand out were Jay Oliva and Michael Chang; each individually credited as director on over a third of episodes, and covering more than 75% of the whole season between them.  That’s not to say that they alone were the secret sauce that made S1 so good (that would just be applying Auteur Theory to a new target and, while their IMDB resumes are impressive, it’s likely that other, less-visible team members were also involved) but having that level of direct input across so much of the season would have given them opportunities to maintain consistency and provide structure/ guidance.

And notably, neither Oliva nor Chang have any major credits post Season 1.   For whatever reason, the directors who handled over 75% of the episodes never returned for future entries.  (Compare most of the Season 1 writers, who do make repeat appearances - although no writer other than Weisman or Vietti gets more than a single episode per season of the revival.)  Which is a pretty substantial gap to leave behind.  From that perspective it’s not surprising that the show saw big changes going forward; to some extent it really wasn’t the same creative team driving things.

At this point we might be tempted to speculate that, if Oliva, Chang and the rest had stayed on (or come back for the revival), then Young Justice would have stayed good or at least been better than how it turned out.  But the truth is, we can’t know.  It’s possible that Season 1 was too much a product of that specific team, time, production environment and media landscape to ever last.  Maybe it was always a doomed venture; the lack of proper planning, Weisman’s creative weaknesses and aversion to endings, Vietti’s relative inexperience with original storytelling, Cartoon Network’s infamously awful treatment of “less marketable” PG-rated series, and executive mandates from DC Comics as they pivoted to push the New 52 and got increasingly spooked by the astronomic rise of the early MCU inevitably destined to force changes which undercut the narrative.  The only answer we’re going to get is that we’re not going to get an answer.

But, you know what?

Despite everything, as frustrating and disheartening as things may have turned out… Young Justice Season One is STILL really good.   It has a distinct creative verve with its combination of espionage-meets-superheroics, grounded-but-still-positive tone, character-focus and interwoven plot threads that pay off as a remarkably self-contained fair mystery.  There is a reason why Season 1 is so enduring; why people still make art, and write fic and reference those characters even now.

So, to that original team; to Michael Chang, Jay Oliva and all the other creative staff - be they writers, directors, story-boarders, animators, colourists, composers, sound designers - who are so rarely mentioned when we gush about how clever and good Season 1 was: thank you for what you gave us.

Because that first season, when Young Justice was just trying to be itself?

It really was lighting in a bottle.

Hats off to them for that.

[foxgloveinspace]

I’m at this point in my fandom life where I’m sick of fandom acting entitled to the creators of their canon.

Like. I was in Jeremy’s chat last night, asking a question about hollow knight, and how there isn’t a canon ending, and two people said ‘that’s what the devs said, but the fandom decided long ago’ about how there is no canon ending.

The fandom does not get to decide that??? We didn’t create it??? The creators said there is no canon ending the end, the fandom does not get to decide anything about the canon, they can choose to ignore it yes, but to completely disregard the canon, and say ‘no, WE decided this was canon so it is’ is so stupid.

And I see it everywhere!! I’m tired of it truly.

[homophyte]

do i care about this or am i bored .

[astro1]

guides.apple.com/

[communistkenobi]

I believe it was the work of legal scholar Florence Ashley where I first encountered this term (it might have also been Serano), but I’m becoming more and more committed to saying “degender” as opposed to “misgender.” like I think the term ‘misgender’ fails to properly identify the mechanism behind the process it describes: misgendering is not an act of attributing the wrong gender characteristics to a trans person, it is an act of dehumanisation. I think the term ‘misgender’ especially gives people much easier rhetorical cover to argue that trans women are hurt by misandry by being ‘mislabeled as men,’ or that they are in fact ‘actually men’ and benefit from male privilege, because the (incorrect) assumption underlying this is that when trans women are ‘misgendered’ they are being treated like men - to follow this line of thinking to its natural conclusion, this denies the existence of transmisogyny altogether, because any ‘misgendering’ of trans women is done only with the intent, conscious or otherwise, to inscribe the social position (and the privileges this position affords) of men onto them, as opposed to stripping them of their womanhood (and thus, their humanity).

The term degendering, however, I think more accurately describes this dehumanising process. Pulling from the work of both Judith Butler and Maria Lugones, gender mediates access to personhood - Lugones says in the Coloniality of Gender that in the colonial imaginary, animals have no gender, they only have (a) sex, and so who gets ‘sexed’ and who gets ‘gendered’ is a matter of who counts as human. She describes this gendering process as fundamentally colonial and emerging as a colonial technology of power - who is gendered is who gets to be considered human, and so the construction of binary sex is a way of ‘speciating’ or rendering non-human the Indigenous and African people of colonized America, justifying and systematising the brutal use of their land and/or their labour until their death by equating them to animals. Sylvia Wynter likewise describes in 1492: A New World View that a popular term used by Spanish colonizers to describe the indigenous people was “heads of Indian men and women,” as in heads of cattle. By the same token, white men are granted the high status of human, worthy of governance, wealth, and knowledge production, and white women are afforded the subordinate though still very high responsibility of reproducing these men by raising and educating children. Appeals to a person’s sex as something more real, more obvious, or ‘poorly concealed’ by their gender is to deny them their gender outright, and therefore is a mechanism to render them non-human. Likewise, for Butler, gender produces the human subject - to be outside gender is to be considered “unthinkable” as a human being, a being in “unliveable” space.

Therefore the process of trans women going from women -> “male” is not “being gendered as a man,” it is being positioned as non-human. when people deny the gender of trans women, most especially trans women of colour, they invariably do this through reference to their genitals, to their ‘sex,’ as something inescapable, incapable of being concealed - again, this is not a process of rendering them as men, it is the exact opposite: it is a process of rendering them as non-human. there is not a misidentification process happening, they are not being “misgendered as men,” there is a de-identification of them as human beings. Hence, they are not misgendered, they are degendered, stripped of gender, stripped of their humanity

[thatweirdtranny]

one of the biggest lies social media has ever sold you is that you can’t be prejudiced against a minority if you’re part of that minority

queers can be homophobic

trans people can be transphobic

black folks can be anti-black

disabled people can be ableist

jews can be antisemitic

we all have biases to unlearn

all this to say, i would love if we could kill the idea that just because you have a few people from a minority endorsing your behavior or ideology doesn’t mean that your behavior/ideology isn’t fundamentally flawed or even bigoted towards that minority

tokenizing doesn’t become good just because it’s for something you agree with

[nostalgebraist]

Seeing a lot of python hate on the dash today... fight me guys. I love python. I am a smoothbrained python enjoyer and I will not apologize for it

Python has multiple noteworthy virtues, but the most important one is that you can accomplish stuff extremely fast in it if you know what you are doing.

This property is invaluable when you're doing anything that resembles science, because

Most of the things you do are just not gonna work out, and you don't want to waste any time "designing" them "correctly." You can always go back later and give that kind of treatment to the rare idea that actually deserves it.

Many of your problems will be downstream from the limitations in how well you can "see" things (high-dimensional datasets, etc.) that humans aren't naturally equipped to engage with. You will be asking lots and lots of weirdly shaped, one-off questions, all the time, and the faster they get answered the better. Ideally you should be able to get into a flow state where you barely remember that you're technically "coding" on a "computer" -- you feel like you're just looking at something, from an angle of your choice, and then another.

You will not completely understand the domain/problem you're working on, at the outset. Any model you express of it, in code, will be a snapshot of a bad, incomplete mental model you'll eventually grow to hate, unless you're able to (cheaply) discard it and move on. These things should be fast to write, fast to modify, and not overburdened by doctrinaire formal baggage or a scale-insensitive need to chase down tiny performance gains. You can afford to wait 5 seconds occasionally if it'll save you hours or days every time your mental map of reality shifts.

The flipside of this is that it is also extremely (and infamously) easy to be a bad python programmer.

In python doing the obvious thing usually just works, which means you can get away with not knowing why it works and usually make it through OK. Yes, this is cringe or whatever, fine. But by the same token, if you do know what the right thing to do is, that thing is probably very concise and pretty-looking and transparent, because someone explicitly thought to design things that way. What helps (or enables) script kiddies can also be valuable to power users; it's not like there's some fundamental reason the interests of these two groups cannot ever align.

[bsof-maarav]

Will they ever begin to wonder why the only Jews in their circles are Jews who feel no social obligations to any specific Jewish community; Jews who lack even the most fundamental knowledge of their own history, let alone the history of Jews from other parts of the diaspora; Jews who recoil from the thought of belonging to any Jewish collective that is not just a grouping of tokens but is fundamentally Jewish in its nature; Jews whose stake in being Jewish goes no deeper than some vague "cultural" reference to humor or bagels or buffoonish stereotypes; Jews who have never demonstrated a degree of solidarity with other Jews that is remotely commensurate with the loyalty that is demanded of them on the basis of whatever their non-Jewish circle claims to value; Jews who allow themselves to be externally defined;

Jews who preemptively disavow their own culture, traditions, history, and/or country to make others comfortable with them; Jews who do their utmost to reduce the friction between their culture and everyone else's, who are quiet about any ways in which they deviate from the group norm; who are quick to say that the only value in something Jewish is as an object lesson to be universalized and used in the service of someone else's liberation...

[ohhgingersnaps]

I'm seeing some frustration over fandom creatives expressing anger or distress over people feeding their work into ChatGPT. I'm not responding to OP directly because I don't want to derail their post (their intent was to provide perspective on how these models actually work, and reduce undue panic, which is all coming from a good place!), but reassurances that the addition of our work will have a negligible impact on the model (which is true at this point) does kind of miss the point? Speaking for myself, my distress is less about the practical ramifications of feeding my fic into ChatGPT, and more about the principle of someone taking my work and deliberately adding it to the dataset.

Like, I fully realize that my work is a drop in the bucket of ChatGPT's several-billion-token training set! It will not make a demonstrable practical difference in the output of the model! That doesn't change the fact that I do not want my work to be part of the set of data that the ChatGPT devs use for training.

According to their FAQ, ChatGPT can and will use user input to train itself. The terms and conditions explicitly state that they save your chats to help train and improve their models. (You can opt-out, but sharing is the default.) So if you're feeding a fic into ChatGPT, unless you've explicitly opted out, you are handing it to the ChatGPT team and giving them permission to use it for training, whether or not that was your intent.

Now, will one fic make a demonstrable difference in the output of the model? No! But as the person who spent a year and a handful of months laboring over my fic, it makes a difference to me whether my fic, specifically, is being used in the dataset. If authors are allowed to have a problem with the ChatGPT devs for scraping millions of fics without permission, they're also allowed to have a problem with folks handing their individual fics over via the chat interface.

I do want to add that if you've done this to a fic, please don't take this as me being upset with you personally! Folks are still learning new information and puzzling out what "good" vs. "bad" use is, from an ethical standpoint. (Heck, my own perspective on this is deeply based on my own subjective feelings!) And we certainly shouldn't act like one person feeding a fic into ChatGPT has the same practical negative impact, on a broad societal scale, as a team using a web crawler to scrape five billion pieces of artwork for Stable Diffusion.

The point is that fundamentally, an ethical dataset should be obtained with the consent of those providing the data. Just because it's normalized for our data to be scraped without consent doesn't make it ethical, and this is why ChatGPT gives users the option to not share data— there is actually a standardized way (robots.txt) for website servers to set policies for how bots/crawlers can interact with them, for exactly this reason— and I think fandom artists and authors are well within their rights to express a desire for opting out to be the socially-respected default within the fandom community.

[stopmakingliberalslookbad]

Principles that so-called "leftists" have abandoned since October 7th

Being against religious fundamentalism: You guys used to think that fundamentalism was a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, you still believe that OTHER religions that are fundamentalist are bad, but Muslim right wing religious fundamentalism is very much okay with you. When you express support for religious fundamentalist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Islamic Republic, you are supporting suppression against women, LGBT people, and Jews (though the latter doesn't bother you at all). These are not resistance groups, they are terror groups.

Anti-racism: Mocking Israeli accents is suddenly funny to you. Jews aren't oppressed any more and antisemitism isn't as important as other forms of ethnic hate. It's okay to discriminate against people based on where they're from (the treatment of twenty year old Eden Golan is a particularly disgusting example). Indigeneity expires if you're Jewish. You support land back efforts for everyone but Jews. You employ the noble savage stereotype against Palestinians, because "That's just their way!" Holocaust inversion and even denial? NBD. Jews are trying to take over the world and are bloodthirsty monsters who support genocide. And the blatant tokenization is horrific. Some of you have even used the expression "Good Jews".

Being against ethnic cleansing: You bleat about the non-existent "genocide" in Palestine (and it is NOT a genocide according the the actual definition of the word), but your only solution is to ethnically cleanse Jews from the Middle East instead of supporting the two state solution.

Anti-nationalism: Jewish nationalism is bad. Arab nationalism is good. There are 22 Arab states and over fifty Muslim states, but even the two state solution in which there would be 22 Arab states, over fifty Muslim states and one Jewish state isn't enough, because Jews bad. Arab and Muslim conquest and imperialism? It's a good thing, ackchuyally!

Belief in science: Genetic studies prove that all ethnic Jews (yes, that includes Ashkenazi Jews) are indigenous to the Levant, but you guys seem to believe that we fell out of the sky. Archaeology proves that Jews were there first, but those findings are "fake" according to you.

Once again, I am asking why are you guys willing to sacrifice your principles for Palestine?

[thedomesticanthropologist]

When Astarion uses the item that turns him into a crow, which is in the game, he is NOT a vampire, nor is he restricted by vampire rules. He is a crow.

Evidence:

Corvid Token is a very rare Amulet that increases jump distance and flying speed, grants the Polymorph: Dire Raven action, and grants Feather Fall to the wearer, which persists while Polymorphed or Wild Shaped

Definition of Polymorph:

Now! Can it turn undead into living? Yes!

But Anthie, you say. The token is regular polymorph and not true polymorph does it act the same? It does!! True Polymorph is just LONGER HARDER BETTER FASTER STRONGER it can do more things, but fundamentally it is *polymorph* and changes the creature

Tldr: in game, Astarion can live in the sunlight with the use of the corvid token in order to travel safely across Faerûn with his companions and does not need to hide during the day

[the-library-alcove]

Ironic Parallels

For all that the political Left likes to claim that they're without bias or bigotry, just existing as a Jew in Leftist spaces will quickly demonstrate otherwise. And for maximum irony, the patterns of systemic antisemitism on the Left don't mirror right-wing antisemitism. Instead, they mirror right-wing racism. Imperfectly, for sure, but the parallels between how the Right treats Black people and how the Left treats Jews are striking.

Discussions of systemic bigotry are deflected with Whataboutisms so that the instigating issue isn't addressed. For African-Americans, it's often "What about Black-on-Black crime?" and similar by the Right-Wing, and for Jews, it's "What about Israel?"

Alternatively, a prominent political advocacy organization is attacked and defamed in order to again deflect and dismiss. "BLM is violent and engages in riots!" or the usual libels against ACORN, and "Israel is fascist!" or the usual libels against AIPAC and the ADL.

At the same time, prominent dead members have their words cherrypicked to make people feel good about themselves and their treatment of that group. Contrast how MLK's "I had a dream!" speech is used by the Right-Wing with how Anne Frank's "I believe that people are fundamentally good at heart" is used by the Left.

On that same theme, token members are held up to deflect accusations of systemic bias. African-American right-wingers prove that the Right Isn't Racist, and Jewish Antizionists prove that the Left isn't antisemitic--or, conversely, the extremist members of the individual group are cherrypicked to "prove" that the whole group is like them.

Furthermore, laws are proposed or passed to disrupt cultural practices; people of African descent face bias for having natural hair, while Jews routinely face people proposing banning circumcision, kosher slaughter, or the keeping of an eruv. But, you see, they can't be biased, because they know all about that group... based on what they saw on TV/Movies/Wikipedia, so they know that the group can handle these laws and rules just "fine".

The targeted group are treated as having an unfair advantage in the racial hierarchy. Consider the parallels between a right-winger complaining about Affirmative Action, and a Left-Winger saying that, since "Jews are White and therefore privileged, antisemitism isn't real discrimination."

But as soon as one shows up in a space outside of where they "belong", they're treated with suspicion until proven that they're acceptable... if ever. A POC in a store is treated as a potential thief, and a Jew in public is automatically acceptable to interrogate if they're a "Zionist".

Consider also how historical revisionism is rife as well. For POC, slavery and imperialism are erased from textbooks, as well as the backlash against Critical Race Theory, the 1619 Project and more. Meanwhile for Jews, pretty much nothing exists in educational curriculums between the start of the Diaspora (assuming it's even mentioned) and the Holocaust, which is treated as an aberration of bigotry instead of the culmination of centuries of hate. Even the admission of the real history is treated as an unforgiveable sin. Black people were never mistreated or enslaved, but were Guest Workers. Jews never came from the Levant and are Just White People From Europe.

And that's before we even get into systemic disenfranchisement. The original "ghetto" was the Jewish ghetto of Venice, and Jews are still routinely discriminated against for hiring, just as POC are.

But at the same time, everyone knows that "Blacks always play the race card" and that "Jews always accuse people of antisemitism."

And so on and so forth.

They're not perfect parallels--and I'm not saying that they are--but they are striking parallels in behavior.

__

I drafted this in April 2023, and it's been sitting in my drafts ever since, as I didn't have the courage to post it.

But given the current SURGE in Leftist Antisemitism, I somehow don't care anymore.

[trans-axolotl]

and this is also why i think that any meaningful community building/advocacy/support around madness/neurodivergence/mental illness needs to be founded on principles of liberation and abolition, and that we need to be able to distinguish between people who are allies based on our shared values + goals, and between people who use some of the same language as us, but are fundamentally advocating for separate things.

One example I see a lot of is the idea of "lived experience" professionals, people who have a career in the mental health system and who also have some personal experience with mental illness. These professionals oftentimes will talk about their own negative experiences in the mental health system, and come into their careers with a genuine desire to improve the experience of patients. But their impact is incredibly limited by the system they have chosen to work in: the coercive elements of psychiatry incentivize professionals to buy into the existing power structures instead of disrupting them. And as a whole, many lived experience professionals end up getting exploited and tokenized by their employers and used as an attempt to make carceral psychiatry seem more palatable. Professionals in this dynamic are not working to effectively challenge the structural violence of their profession: they become complicit, even if they do also have good intentions and provide individual support.

(I do know some radical providers who have found innovative ways to fuck up the system and destabilize and shift power in their workplaces, but this is a very small number of providers and is not most of the lived experience providers I've talked with.)

Another example I see a lot in our spaces has to do with the evolution of the neurodiversity paradigm. I feel a very deep connection to the original conceptualization of neurodiversity and neurodivergent as coined by Kassiane Asasumasu, but in recent years I've seen a lot of people using neurodivergent language in a way that feels pretty dramatically different than the foundational principles. This isn't saying that people should stop using ND terminology or that all neurodivergent spaces are like this--rather, I just want to point out some trends I see in certain communities, both online and in my in personal life. Although people will often use neurodivergent language and on the surface, seem allied with concepts of deinstitutionalization, acceptance, etc, the values and structure in these community spaces often rely heavily on ideas of classification based in DSM, and build very prescriptive and rigid models for categorizing different types of neurodivergence in a way that ends up excluding some M/MI/ND people. Certain types of knowledge are valued over other types of knowledge, and certain diagnoses are prioritized as worthy of support over others. There's a lot of value placed on identifying and classifying many types of behaviors, beliefs, thoughts, actions, into specific categories, and a lack of solidarity between different diagnoses or the wider disability community.

Again, this isn't to say that ND terminology is bad or useless--I think it is an incredibly helpful explanatory model/shorthand for finding community and will call myself neurodivergent, and find a lot of value in community identification and sharing of wisdom. I just feel like it's important to realize that not every ND person, organization, or initiative, is actually invested in the project of fighting for our liberation.

when thinking about our activism, as abolitionists, it's important to be very specific about what our goals, values, and tactics are. For example, understanding the concept of non-reformist reforms helps us distinguish what immediate goals are useful, versus what reforms work to increase the carceral power of the psychiatric system. And when building our own value systems and trying to build alternative ways of caring for ourselves and our communities, we need to be able to evaluate what brings us closer to autonomy, freedom, and interdependence. I need people to understand that just because someone is also against psych hospitalization does not mean that they are also allies in the project of letting mad people live free, authentic, meaningful, and supported lives, and that oftentimes people's allyship is conditional on our willingness to conform to their ideas of a "good" mentally ill person.