If your support of Palestine includes apologizing for SA on the part of Hamas, you'd better block me before I come for your ass

okay so im seeing people get anons about this and its coming up in friend groups so i think now's actually a pretty good time to tackle the idea of religious (specifically cultic) abuse in media and how we as an audience interact with it

TLDR: dehumanization and sexualization of cult victims furthers the misunderstanding that cults "don't exist now", and RA survivors would feel much safer in fandom spaces if people acknowledged and analyzed the harmful portrayals of cults in media.

cw: discussions of cults, abuse, and sexual assault

also, if you have questions, please shoot me an ask or dm (off anon preferably, though)

let me start this with a disclaimer that i dont think every media that features ra is inherently bad. i think thats a bit harsh and as an ra survivor ive come to terms with the fact that there are going to be depictions of it in ways that maybe dont give it the respect it deserves, and trying to "what about [x]" everything will only lead people to talking in circles with themselves. what i want to address here is how you, as a consumer, respond to and parse out what cultic abuse means in any particular portrayal of it.

*also please don't harass people about their RAS status, like, if you see someone enjoying something with a less than stellar portrayal of cults, don't send them asks or dms like "well are YOU a cult survivor?" reducing the consumption of media to a yes or no game based on identity-- especially an identity that comes as the result of explicit pain and spiritual violation is not only derivative but also degrading to survivors and the people you're grilling. all we want is for people to think carefully about what they spread and portray, and how they think about those situations.

so, i think the first thing to tackle is...what is a cult? This is something that's surprisingly hard to define, especially in fictional settings with fictional cults. For example, (and pardon the use of this example, I don't feel like hunting for others), My Hero Academia has an organization in it that I would say fits the criteria for being a cult, but by and large isn't considered one by fans because it's not explicitly called a cult. (Although numerous cult jokes have been made about it). It also has an organization that IS explicitly referred to as a cult.

So, when you're dealing with how to process what is and is not a cult-- and how to make your presence safe for RA survivors, you have to be able to sift through more than just "did the narrative tell me this is a cult?"

There's a few different models people use; one of the most popular being the BITE model-- but I should clarify that the BITE model is really tailored towards religious and strictly hierarchal cults, but can be applied to other kinds of cults.

(and yes, there are cults other than religious/spiritual ones. corporate cults and wellness cults have been on the rise, and it's good to keep that in mind both when engaging with media and also in the real world.)

However, I'm a religious cult survivor, so a lot of my experience is strictly irt this, so please take what I say with a grain of salt, and know that I don't speak for every cult survivor, every religious cult survivor, or every religious abuse survivor. I am One Guy on the internet.

When it comes to media, I have a few questions I run through in order to figure out if something is A Cult.

1) Fringe Ideas. This one is one of those that most people know-- and often incorrectly use to attribute cult status to other things. However, it is worth mentioning, that you don't become a cult by following mainstream ideologies. BUT. BUT. not every group with weird ideas is a cult! Some groups are just weird and are fine being weird. It's a rectangles and squares situation. All cults have fringe ideas and behaviors, not all fringe ideas and behaviors belong to cults.

2) Hierarchies. Cults always have people in power, at least in my experience. There have been ideas thrown around about "completely decentralized cults"-- but to be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about that concept, and I don't know enough about it personally to say whether or not it's legitimate. If you have any sources, hmu.

BUT. Most cults have a power structure. You're going to have leaders, usually with a handful at the verrrrry tippy top, whose word is law. This can be associated with things like religious ideas (channelling god) or being "a genius", like in corporate cults.

3) Control. I cannot stress this enough; cults are all about control. How you think, feel, behave-- they discourage critical thought, encourage snitching on each other, buddy-group behavior; the BITE model explicitly lists these models of control.

4) Us V Them. Cults will give all those that oppose them or simply don't believe them a bad name. They're uneducated, they're evil-- it varies cult to cult, but you'll see them turning the non believers into a homogenous, frightening group. They want to discourage looking outwards, and they want to viciously isolate members.

Other things of note are extremism, talks of enlightenment, harsh punishments, the cult eating large portions of the member's finances, etc.

However, this post is largely to address FICTIONAL cults. and the unfortunate fact of the matter is that fictional cults are rarely fleshed out in a way that can be held one to one to a model, and, more often, don't even afford the victims of a cult humanity.

and this is one of THE biggest issues you find in cult portrayals. the leader is usually a charismatic, or perhaps menacing, figure, one that usually our protagonists-- who are rarely cult victims, they are typically outsiders (not inherently bad, mind you)-- faces personally, with the hoardes of mindless zombies forming one giant hurdle.

Naturally, this can be...hurtful. There's nuance to who is and is not a victim in a cult (although my rule of thumb is to look at what abuses that person specifically exerts over others-- and you can be both a victim and perpetrator of abuse. to treat them exclusively is lacking all nuance), but the people are the bottom, even if they joined willingly, are people who were preyed upon. Not only that, but many media cults forget that people can be born into cults, and never really had a choice to begin with. To treat these people like they are mindless-- or that they deserve the suffering they are in because they are there-- completely erases all nuance, humanity, and understanding to the cult survivior struggle. Not only that, but it continues to sensationalize and deify cult leaders, which is doing their job for them, really.

The second biggest issue is the romanticization and sexualization of cults, religious abuse, and cultic abuse.

(yes...this is a thing.)

The use of cults as a way to make a character edgy or tragic is one thing, but there's something sinister about using it to project a certain sexual behavior onto that character-- whether it be as the subjugator or subjugated. Sexual abuse is rampent in cults, and ritualistic sexual abuse is used to justify it. To sexualize the idea of a cult(ist) raping and abusing someone is...beyond offensive to anyone who has been in a cult where their sexual safety and autonomy has been compromised. Or, in some cases, the cultist is so naive and sheltered they can be easily coerced and taken advantage of due to their brainwashing.

This is...bad? This is bad. To ignore the fact that these depictions are just as harmful as any other romanticization of abuse is to ignore the real suffering of cult victims.

Really, the larger problem is that people don't really think cults exist, not really. They're all things of the past, or things that exist solely in fiction-- when in reality, every day cults form and continue to grow. If you've ever met a mormon, you've met a cultist. The moment you begin to process and parce the fact that this isn't as bizarre and unusual and fictional as it seems, you take the steps to respecting people who have been in that situation and become better at detecting cults, cult recruitment, and are able to more clearly assess what you take in.

Once again, there's so many bad portrayal of cults that it would be...stupid to call for an immediate disowning of anything with it in it. I personally have come to terms with the idea that I will have gripes about these portrayals in most cases, but rarely do I see people other than fellow RA or cult survivors discussing these portrayals. I'm hoping people can become more aware and willing to discuss cults in a serious and analytical context and criticize how they're portrayed in the things they love.

And once again, cult survivors are NOT a monolith. If a cult survivor expresses they are uncomfortable with something I said here that I'm not, or vice versa, listen to the people who actively surround you and whom you care about.

Can I ask for your thoughts on why the Syndicate should be disbanded?

The Syndicate as it is can stay together because realistically it hasn't done much at all and it's as if it never existed, so I see why some people would be 'meh' about it.

Howeber, if we look at its core ideology, aka dear leader Technoblade, we see that it is deeply controlling and authoritarian. Him being in charge of anything makes me ill at ease and I would rather he stayed in his cabin forver.

1. Technoblade, in his firm belief that no one should tell others what to do with their lives is telling what others should do with their lives. By using strength, threats and coercion. A true hero. To start with he has no right to found a Syndicate- he has no right to dictate what others can and cannot do no matter how noble the intentions. It's not how things work, especially since take into account that we can count the members of each individual faction on our fingers. The Syndicate aims to control everyone's actions and that's very Technoblade.

2. It's formed by four to five people out of thirty three. That's 15% if the overall population. Three of those five have Wither Skulls in their possession as well as plenty of materials- in short, they're the richest of the rich with nuclear bombs going after people like Tommy who lives in a dirt house. Doesn't that make anyone else go hmmmmm, or is it just me? (and yes they are against Tommy, the average L'manburg enjoyer) Not to mention that two members (Niki and Ranboo) have no interest in being there, Ranboo is there just in case Technoblade finds about his marriage with Tubbo "Government" Underscore, and does something that Ranboo fully believes he will. Yes the Syndicate should absolutely be disbanded, if only for Michael's sake who is innocent and even has Phil worried for him.

3. He actively goes into other people's houses ala gestapo to inspect their property and confiscate anything "dangerous" they "shouldn't have" and that's reprehensible. Literally Dream and Schlatt did that. "Tubbo has nukes tho." Yeah and so does Technoblade, I love how everyone just forgets about the 120 Wither Skulls currently in his possession. Would Technoblade let Tubbo do an inspection in his property as he did? No. So that's hypocrisy for the long list of faults. And before someone gets a nefarious thought, Tubbo was justified in searching Philza's house, one of the three perpetrators of Doomsday. I think people forget what terrorism means sometimes because Technoblade says it so flippantly. There are rules and they apply for everyone, not just when Technoblade wants them to.

4. He is not actually an anarchist and the Syndicate has no other plans other than Government bad- which is counterproductive and damaging. :O I hear the gasps. I'm right though. Anarchists actually believe in things like communes and mutual aid and like... don't witch hunt human beings for gathering in settlements? When has he proposed any alternative to the poor delusional slaves living in L'manburg? When has he uttered the words cooperation or commune? It's easy to make a crater out of someone's home if they don't agree, but it's simply unimaginable to offer some sort of asylum or a guide to them huh? From the citizens of L'manburg's POV Technoblade practically strolled in and told everyone to disperse or else. He's all about destroying infrastructures, but has put in 0 hours of humanitarian work- the whole point of anarchism. It's like rescuing someone from drowning and leaving them abandoned in the middle of the desert, but then it turns out that someone was actually just diving. I'd spit on his face too.

5. In his mind three groups exist. 1. Him and Philza, mighty illuminated gods as the ideal of morality that can never do no wrong and always know what's best. 2. Government, everyone who has ever told anyone to do something, humanoid representations of an abstract thought. Must be expunged from the face of the earth. 3. Slave, weak homeless orphans who don't know what's good for them, but he won't hesitate to curb stomp if they get in his way by using any means necessary including the Syndicate. I hate that and I wish someone found a way to transport him back in pre-lmanburg dsmp with an empty inventory just so he sees what's it like.

6. There is no government in the smp, actually. Technoblade made it up. In his words not everyone who gathers together, lives together and has a leader is a government. "That's like saying book clubs are a government." So he agrees that L'manburg build upon cooperation, mutual aid with the grand total of nine members max at any given time is not actually a government just because they call themselves that for different historical reasons right? Right????? On the topic of labels. He can claim the term "anarchist" despite not following the ideology's basic principles, so he should allow the same with people like Tubbo (who did more than the Syndicate ever will for the lower classes of the server such as providing housing and help), right? He can be hand-wavy with the basics and the terms and whatever, but L'manburg with their "president" couldn't?

"There are structures of power though." Yeah so does the Syndicate. L'manburg and the Syndicate are literally one and the same no matter how much he wants to twist it. Do you think that Technoblade would let anyone else but him dictate what to do, or keep the Wither Skulls? No.

7. When has he used physical force, or the Syndicate's powers for the benefit of anyone but himself? When has he actually saved someone from the evil clutches of Government? When has he done any good with the god-like powers he possesses? Never. Never ever ever. All he's done is hurt others. Even Dream cared about the smp members at some point or something. He doesn't deserve to have the Syndicate at his beck and call.

8. Technoblade has no idea what the fuck he's talking about, actually. He has zero understanding of the events prior, during or post his arrival to the server. He lives in a bubble and refuses to cooperate or at least investigate others. Is that the man you want in charge of a powerful group tasked with... uh... fighting Governments? Man isn't even aware of the actual power structure of the server- am I supposed to root for him? He called Schlatt a rightfully elected president and is helping Dream, it has to be satire I'm not understanding. The Syndicate is nothing but a small footnote to the sham that is Technoblade's entire philosophy.

So in conclusion, the Syndicate is nothing but a tool for an egoistical destructive man and it absolutely deserves to shrivel up and die like the thoughtless, cruel and exploitative organization it is if it ever decides to show up and do something.

/nm i just hate pig man. just in case

I'm sorry, but as someone who can't stand how Yang acted for 80% of Atlas, saying "her feeling like she had to help raise Ruby is demeaning and unempathetic to Tai" is a HORRIBLE take. If Yang held it against Tai that'd be one thing, but she doesn't, least not as far as we've seen.

And "she decided he's an unfit parent"? That's literally just headcanon. Where is this stated or supported in any way? Literally everything, from the show to the comics to the manga, shows she absolutely values her father and his guidance. Her providing similar guidance to Ruby at some point doesn't change that, she's stated to be Ruby's mother figure, a woman in her life she could seek advice on in regards to things as well.

Like anon I get you're frustrated by how empathy and morality are handled in this show, I am too, but this just ain't it.

I have simillar feelings on the Weiss scene too but that's another story, you already kind of covered it.

Agreed, though I don't want to rag on the other anon. As said, I can very easily see how someone would come to that conclusion, especially given how often we discuss parts of the show without actually re-watching those scenes, leading to iffy interpretations down the line. A fandom pretty heavily focused on a "Tai is a bad dad" reading + Yang's unfair criticisms of others from Volumes 5-8 (notably her most recent characterization. The one fresh in everyone's mind) = an easy opportunity to mistakenly slam the two together. It happens. That's why I try, whenever possible, to re-watch moments, or at the very least re-read transcripts. I'm well aware of how easy it is to get sucked into how the fandom discusses scenes and take that interpretation at face value, when in fact what's canonical has gotten pretty warped across, in this case, six years of content and discussions.

But let's talk about Weiss a bit more! I think it's worth re-emphasizing that, yes, I'm well aware that she was the victim of that dinner party. My own criticism lies less in that specific moment and more the conceptualizing of our heroes as a whole, which leads to some missed opportunities in that moment, some quite important. For example, most classically heroic characters would be horrified at nearly hurting/killing someone, regardless of whether that was intentional or not. That's a crucial part of what makes them heroic: cherishing life and shouldering responsibility for others' safety, even when it's clear from the audience's more objective perspective that they weren't at fault. There's a happy middle ground here between acknowledging Weiss' horrific panic attack and acknowledging Weiss' responsibility moving forward to ensure that her trauma doesn't endanger others—given that her trauma is drawing on literal, combat techniques—highlighting her desire to do right by the people of Remnant, even when they're snobbish, rich assholes. Any reading that boils things down simply to "Weiss is the only victim in this situation and besides, why do we care if a racist Atlesian bites the dust 😒?" is a small representation of the much larger writing problems of Volumes 7 and 8: acting like Mantle is full of only good victims, Atlas only evil perpetrators, and a defense of the latter isn't worth anyone's time—certainly not the heroes who never, ever make mistakes with massive consequences. Weiss' near attack also carries with it the beginnings of a lot of themes that RWBY never capitalized on, but pretended were an important part of the story by the end of that Atlas arc, like Ironwood's supposed propaganda, or Whitley's question of whether power should be solely in the hands of a few, individual huntsmen. Weiss' situation might have been reframed into something that looks intentional: Here's not just a girl, but a Schnee girl, attacking a poor, defenseless civilian with her scary powers. Are we really going to leave the safety of our kingdom—the world—in the hands of people like her? You should be backing the army, people who have your real interests in mind, led by the man who saved that woman's life—General Ironwood! And the audience would rightly be going, Hey now wait a fucking minute. That's not what happened! It was an accident born of trauma and abuse. How can you manipulate the people into thinking otherwise? Into thinking Weiss is the enemy here? Like, if you're going to write Ironwood/Atlas as the awful, propaganda spewing antagonists... actually write that story.

So the party scene could have been the launching point for a lot of important work, both in terms of Weiss' characterization (a hero learning to balance flaws with her people's safety; taking responsibility for her mistakes, no matter the initial intention) and the world building (what does it mean for a Schnee to (mistakenly) attack a civilian when tensions are this high and faith in huntsmen is beginning to fail?) But for the purposes of what we actually got, that lack of reflection on Weiss' part, as said, reads badly when pit against her actions in Volumes 6-8. Because my brain is super focused on Star Wars atm, I think Anakin is a decent comparison to all this. Meaning, we know where he ends up—super scary Sith Lord who is going to do All The Bad Things Ever—and that will, naturally, color our reading of everything that happens in prequal material. When Anakin gets pissed and cuts the limbs off a Separatist, it produces a "Yikes" reaction in the audience because we know that anger, grief, frustration, and fear are going to lead him down an awful path. In contrast, when Obi-Wan is challenged about his no killing unarmed men policy and cheekily looks to Rex to kill him instead, we don't really go "Yikes" because we know Obi-Wan remains true to the Light for his entire run. All their actions have the primary reading of "They were justified that time/they made a mistake/they're allowed to be human/etc." But only Anakin has the secondary reading of, "That action is REALLY BAD—more bad than Obi-Wan's—because we know where it leads. It reads as setup for his inevitable fall." That's basically where the RWBY group is at the moment, provided you're unhappy with their lack of empathy in the later volumes. If the group had remained more compassionate then yeah, we'd continue to shrug off past moments that sorta imply otherwise because we know that's not who they really are. Weiss never grappled with nearly hurting someone only because, hell, RWBY doesn't let her grapple with anything! She didn't even get to respond to getting speared through the gut. But knowing where they end up—knowing that Weiss will be party to Ozpin's treatment, will help betray Ironwood, will accuse Marrow of abandoning her city only to do nothing for it in turn, will threaten her brother, will give the wish to destroy her entire kingdom and displace all its people, etc.—creates that "Yikes" response whenever we see something earlier that even somewhat aligns with her current characterization. It doesn't erase the 100% correct reading that Weiss was the victim and made a totally unintentional mistake in that moment. It doesn't erase the knowledge that RWBY rarely capitalizes on the implications of scenes like this anyway. It only adds another reading in the form of, "Well, knowing where she ends up... I can kinda see that future version in her here too."

Dude I just saw the stupidest take of my life, someone waa like ' if you can forgive catra then you should be able to forgive shadow weaver because they are basically the same and catra never really apologized for anything and shadow weaver was also abused' It's like adam apologists all over again shitting on ilia even though she actually had remorse for her actions and tried to make good choices i am a f salt mine today literally fuming :(

Yeah that's some bullshit. See, here's the thing. It's fine if personally you weren't invested in Catra and her story, or if you never cared about her and Adora's relationship. We all have personal preferences and some stuff just won't be to your taste! But you can acknowledge that something is good without liking it yourself, and without trying to twist the facts to prove that your opinion is correct.

So for interest's sake let's break this down point by point.

“[Catra and Shadow Weaver] are basically the same.”

Catra is a highly traumatised teenager who was raised without a single positive role model or example of healthy behaviour, while being put through constant verbal and physical abuse from her guardian/parental figure which made her feel completely worthless and inferior to everyone, and as a result developed self-destructive tendencies and damaging defence mechanisms which caused her to lash out at people to avoid being hurt again.

Shadow Weaver is a fully grown adult who knowingly and insidiously abused and manipulated both Catra and Adora throughout their entire lives up until they were approaching adulthood and previously risked the life of a literal child performing a dangerous spell because of her desire for power clouding her reason. She was never shown to grow up in a horrifically negative environment and the trauma she suffered during the Spell of Obtainment was primarily her own doing.

There's a parallel to Catra in that Shadow Weaver also felt neglected and taken for granted by her mentor figures, but they are not remotely the same.

“Catra never really apologised for anything.”

During Season 5 Catra apologises on no less than three separate occasions (to Adora in S5E3, to Entrapta in S5E6, and again to Adora in S5E8) and she also tries to apologise to Scorpia on two separate occasions but can't because the first time Scorpia is brainwashed and the second time Scorpia hugs her before she can finish. And not a single one of those times does she attempt to justify anything she did, or attempt to put any of the responsibility on other people.

Catra has repeatedly acknowledged her mistakes and sincerely expressed regret for them without any blame shifting or dismissing the pain she caused, and to say otherwise is flat out not true.

“Shadow Weaver was also abused.”

I sort of already covered this, but yeah, this point also doesn't hold up at all. We're shown that Shadow Weaver felt ignored and sidelined by the other sorcerors, but never that she was deliberately stripped of her self esteem and repeatedly mistreated to the point of torture.

Comparing Shadow Weaver's frustration at her colleague's unwillingness to take extreme risks which could have equally severe consequences to Catra being constantly treated like literal garbage and ““punished”” with magic from when she was still just a child is ridiculous.

“Catra's toxicity towards Scorpia was the same as Shadow Weaver's abuse of Adora and Catra.”

They're the same in that neither situation was remotely okay. But again, equating a traumatised victim of child abuse projecting that cycle of abuse onto someone else to the perpetrator of said child abuse who began that cycle in the first place is, uh... Not a Good Take.

This isn't to excuse anything about the way Catra treated Scorpia or anyone else she hurt—those actions were entirely her own and she had to take responsibility for them and face the consequences—but to say those two examples are identical is wrong.

“Shadow Weaver deserved a redemption arc.”

No, she didn't. Because as you say, she never took any of the necessary steps to redeem herself.

Noelle has said that Shadow Weaver's death wasn't a redemption, and I also remember her saying that as far as Shadow Weaver was concerned, once she was working with the Rebellion she considered herself redeemed and one of the good guys. Which is exactly why Shadow Weaver never deserved redemption, because she didn't even understand that she needed to redeem herself.

Shadow Weaver never once hesitated over her decisions or showed any remorse for what she did to Catra and Adora. She never apologised to anyone, and the only truly good thing she ever did was to die so that her victims would be free of her forever. But even then, her “you're welcome” to Catra shows that she still wasn't being truly selfless and felt like she was obligated to some measure of forgiveness for doing the absolute bare minimum.

On the other hand, let's look at some of the main things Catra does in Season 5 as part of her redemption arc.

She saves Glimmer, risking her life and allowing herself to be tortured similarly to how Shadow Weaver used to ““punish”” her with her magic, I might add and brainwashed in an attempt to keep Adora safe.

She chooses to try and discover Horde Prime's plans by looking into his mind using her chip, even though it means reliving a hugely traumatic experience, in an attempt to help Adora and the Rebellion against Horde Prime.

She literally throws herself headfirst into fire with zero hesitation to try and rescue Adora.

She stays behind to fight what is essentially a giant potentially deadly monster alone, once again to protect Adora and hopefully allow her to save Etheria.

She lets herself be physically attacked by members of the Rebellion on multiple occasions without fighting back or holding onto any bitterness over it because she knows it's warranted.

She offers or at least tries to offer genuine apologies to the people she hurt the most (Adora, Entrapta, and Scorpia) without attempting to excuse any of her wrongdoing and without any expectation of forgiveness.

Catra achieves zero personal gain through any of these actions. They are wholly selfless acts, and that's how she proves that she's actually changing for the better. Not with one single instance of doing a decent thing which comes with a “you're welcome” as a final guilt trip, but with repeated good choices which she makes without demanding any sort of reward for them.

To give more examples:

In Episode 3, Catra starts to learn how to apologise for the things she did and express the regret she feels over her actions.

In Episode 6, Catra starts to learn how to let herself be vulnerable, and how to openly and honestly ask for the things she wants instead of assuming other people already know and then lashing out when they don't understand. She also lets Adora set clear boundaries without reacting badly, and manages to share her feelings knowing that Adora might choose to reject her or walk away.

In Episode 8, Catra starts to learn that feeling exposed and embarrassed isn't always a bad thing, and that when the rest of the group tease her it's a sign of them beginning to accept her rather than them mocking her— that they're laughing with her, rather than at her. She also shows that she's making progress towards working through her issues by finding ways to manage her anger rather than lashing out.

In Episode 9, Catra tries to reassure Netossa that Spinnerella will be okay, demonstrating that she's starting to learn how to empathise with other people more and express sympathy for their struggles.

In Episode 10, Catra is willing to go back to the Fright Zone with Adora and the others, a.k.a. return to the place which is the source of most of her trauma, because she knows it's what has to be done.

In Episode 11, Catra decides to go to Mystacor with Adora and the others even though it's Shadow Weaver's idea, a.k.a. follow a plan thought up by the woman who's the source of most of her trauma, because she knows it's what has to be done. She also willingly lets Adora go to the Heart and potentially sacrifice herself which has literally been Catra's greatest fear throughout this entire season, because she accepts that it's Adora's choice to make and finally understands that Adora's priority will always be the greater good and she can't and shouldn't change that.

In Episode 13, Catra chooses to stay by Adora's side no matter what, regardless of whether Adora feels the same way about her, because she's reached a place where she's able to accept that her feelings might not be reciprocated and she still wants to be there for Adora in any way necessary even so— even if it means watching the love of her life die in front of her.

Catra spends the entire season going through the personal growth necessary to become a better person and learn how to have healthy connections with people. She makes the effort to improve time after time and dedicates herself to the ongoing job of breaking her toxic tendencies and making up for everything she did. If you still don't believe that she deserved to find peace and love after all of that then I can't make you, but you can't just ignore everything that happened in the show.

tl;dr - you don't have to like Catra or her arc, but she more than earned her happy ending.

the only one making the implication that black men are violent and abusive here is you... how do you not realize that you’re the one perpetuating racism lol. most people who watched the show wouldn’t have even had a thought like that in the back of their minds until.. guess who brought it into the picture? you

Alrighty, strap in because we’re going on a history trip.

This article is a long read and very upsetting (trigger warning for racist images and the n word is used from a film quote) but it’s written by Dr. David Pilgrim, a black sociology professor, and it outlines the existence of the “brute caricature” throughout pieces of media and the impact that it’s had on real people, including the over 3000 lynchings of black Americans between 1882 and 1951 and the shooting down of the Dyer bill in 1922.

I’m not the one making assumptions here. This is a systematic and time honored tradition. Dr. Pilgrim puts it better than I do:

"The brute caricature portrays black men as innately savage, animalistic, destructive, and criminal -- deserving punishment, maybe death. This brute is a fiend, a sociopath, an anti-social menace. Black brutes are depicted as hideous, terrifying predators who target helpless victims, especially white women."

This is extra timely in connection to Carousel, because Billy dies in the process of committing a violent crime against a white man.

In specific connection to Carousel, though, I am not the only person who made this connection. Michael Feingold, a theatre critic, wrote a lengthy column that you can read here that explores how America’s troubled history with race relations and sexism and “every other kind of injustice toward individuals and groups” reflects in our arts, using the revival of Carousel as a case example. He puts it rather plainly when he writes:

“The recent revival of Carousel failed at least partly because it conveyed such discomfort with the collision of its subject matter and its colorblind casting: A swaggering black man who hits his white wife was apparently not the hero anyone involved wanted to put onstage, and so the gifted Joshua Henry came off as the most abashed Billy Bigelow imaginable.“

I think it’s foolish to pretend like we are beyond racism, because we’re not. Racism isn’t a switch, it’s a spectrum, and just because we may not have lynchings or segregation written into our laws doesn’t mean that we’ve reached true equality and we’re not wrestling with stereotypes and preconceived notions that are both consciously and subconsciously affected by things like the media we consume and what it says and crucially doesn’t say.

If we take a look at the site History on the Net, particularly it’s section on imagery and stereotypes and the mission statement for that section, it clearly says:

“The mission of this collection is to educate about the power of imagery in the stereotyping of race. By understanding how it happened, we can recognize it happening now. Once aware, we can make a conscious effort to avoid the messy thinking stereotyping promotes that leads to fear, prejudice, hate, and discrimination. Increasing sensitivity to these stereotypes can promote racial tolerance.”

(Emphasis mine) Which is something that I strongly believe in. You might benefit from reading the article on History on the Net about distancing yourself from the stereotypes, as you seem to believe that I am making a problem where there isn’t one by noting Joshua’s race and the implications included thereof. The last common excuse used as an example on this page addresses that:

“11. We should all just relax and not worry about this stuff. It's really no big deal. It would be nice if this were true. Unfortunately, we will never stop talking about race. Because of this, we must learn to talk about race better than we do now. Ignoring racism, pretending it doesn't exist is not the way to talk better about it.”

I don’t like Carousel for a lot of reasons, and I don’t think it should have been revived at all, and the racist stereotypes that it puts forth are only part of that. When we talk about the revival we often talk exclusively about the implications of putting on a musical that seems to justify domestic abuse through a forgiveness arc of a domestic abuser during the height of the Me Too movement, and that was not a smart move, but we shouldn’t let that obtuse decision overshadow the other harmful aspects, nor should we perpetrate the idea that noticing someone’s race is racist. 

We are not all the same. However, being different does not mean being lesser, it just means that we are having different experiences and coming from different places and carry different histories and cultures. Those differences should be celebrated, not erased. Pretending they don’t exist, whether by saying that you don’t see color or saying that I’m making it racist by noting them, is wrong. White people will never understand what it’s like to live as a person of color, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t still strive to listen to their experiences and recognize that things like media portrayals are a little too complex to express in 550 characters.

i've been following you for a while, but i only just now went and looked at your personal blog. i'm shocked by the amount of radical feminism you engage in, especially because on this blog you have discussed gender identity, presentation, and helped trans people before. please be honest on this blog so people who want to avoid terfs can do so. do you support trans people, or not?

I have to justify my feminism on here when I’ve been, as you say, respectful to trans issues? Whatever, let’s get this over with. There is a BYF on my personal blog that I think quite plainly states my position:

“- I am a rad-leaning feminist

- Trans women are women, trans men are men.

- Against cotton-ceiling rhetoric and any other arguments that rely on rape culture to accuse someone of prejudice.

- I do not support rhetoric that shields abusers or rapists for being a part of a minority group, especially when it attacks survivors telling their truth.

- Fighting traditional sexism that assumes women have vaginas and are inferior for having them (abortion, fgm, sex trafficking, gendered socialization) is not incompatible with fighting and understanding transmisogyny and supporting trans women as women.”

That means I think it’s horrorific rhetoric to suggest that lesbians are required to be in a relationship and sleep with trans lesbians to be politically correct. I have always maintained since before the birth of Terf as a term that no women has to have sex with anyone to prove their politics. These days that’s enough to be labeled a terf.

I also don’t think female women have any kind of privilege related to our gender. Whether you’re a woman from birth or a trans woman, our gender does not have privilege. Cis isn’t a privilege when your a woman. Which to me means that while it’s important for women not to be transphobic, it’s important for trans people to not be sexist. For me to date to assert this truth is another view point enough to label me a terf.

Also what matters is the content of my blog not who I reblog from. Are there disgustingly transphobic posts on my personal blog? Absolutely not. I avoid generally avoid the radfems who aggressively call trans women males. I will never condone or agree with that.

I know many of you truly feel like terfs are the evil you need to stop, but the idea the terfs are as evil as Nazi’s is really just classic misogyny. It’s so much easier to attack women. Women are generally viewed as a loving and nurturing gender. When we don’t act like that, we are punished dearly for it. Being a terf these days seems to be more about attacking women for not being perfect than going after actual transphobia. Last time I checked whenever I read about a trans woman being murdered, a cis man was responsible. And yet zealous feminists misgendering trans women are the genocidal ones. Really?

Did any of you ever stop and think how much you are attacking and hurting women for the talking about their oppression is fucked up? How cis men get a pass over and again, but man it’s those terfs you got to watch out for. Even though it’s men that have killed your trans sisters. But no, your more worried about who I follow.

I get the pressures to conform in society, and some of you have really done a great job of scaring female women into not talking about feminism in the way it effects them for fear of being called a terf. I don’t say this lightly, you’ve created a real witch hunt to shut up women talking about their vaginas. You’ve done nothing for the cause of trans people, you’ve just essentially attacked the minority gender because it’s easier. It’s always easier to go after women, like this new Ok Karen bullshit that once again ignores men as a primary cause and perpetrators of all kinds of bigotry.

At the end of the day I’m a disabled butch lesbian. I have been on the receiving end of genuine transphobia (questioning if I belong in a bathroom) and I will stand against it gladly. I have never had any problem with trans people I have a problem with misogyny.

A lot of you have said you appreciate the way I see things, I really hope you can understand the nuance here. I don’t have anything against trans people and will never suggest otherwise. I have a problem with attacking women and calling it activism. You want to know something? Transmisogyny can’t exist without good ol fashion misogyny.

I know this post is going to get me attacked, and I’ll get hate for this. That’s what’s happened to my real life friend on this site for having the audacity to be a de-transitioner and settling on a butch lesbian identity. But I’m mature enough to deal with it and stick to my guns.

If you truly think my assertation of certain feminist beliefs automatically makes me a terf despite having a history on this blog of being respectful of trans issues, you can go. I really don’t care to have people follow me who feel like my vagina is a constant threat to trans people and want to dictate who I can and can’t reblog from. I’m not going to be bullied that way.

I won’t respond to this post, as I refuse to have this fight in my blog. This is my stance, take it or leave.

Ah knets. I've seen them tear someone down so bad to the point of no return but they never learn. Some do but it's like their past time, digging someone's past then revealing it so they can feel better about themselves. Thing is, a lot of countries are like this but I've never seen this kind of dedication from anyone else (except UK ig)

My understanding of this is that Koreans have this strong sense of communal control that justifies people punishing each other even before actual law enforcement has anything to say about the matter. Koreans don’t trust their own law enforcement much, but seem to place their own understanding of morals, social norms and etiquette above that. That creates this “masses know best” effect, which in turn makes it possible for them to start protesting against something rather seamlessly - aka. if they think something threatens their common interests. So they’re good at defending themselves against common enemy, but their biggest threat comes from within their group, from individuals who defy the norms of the group and therefore disturb their peace and unity. It seems to be the biggest possible crime you can think of: breaking the implicitly agreed social standards and norms in a very public way. See Wonho’s example: everybody was fine with him having a “shady” past (or whatever) as long as it wasn’t ever explicitly talked about. They were totally cool with him doing a bit of this and that as a teenager, but becoming a public role model and then being exposed to the last detail, years after? Considering the reactions of Koreans it was almost like he fucking murdered someone, and it was suddenly everybody’s literal civic duty to express their utter disdain, shock, mock and disbelief, even though everything he was accused of just made me... scratch the back of my head, at most, because of how meaningless it literally was.

Like honestly just a few days ago I had a knetizen waltz into my inbox (I literally don’t know how they even found my blog and how deeply involved with uselessness they had to be to find it) and used like literally the strongest possible wording to imply that Wonho absolutely cannot come back ever “ 근데 니네 오빠 절대 못 돌아올꺼야 “ and I was like... why the hell do these Koreans have to be so dramatic over something so insignificant we might literally be talking about ass hairs at this point. But no, to them it’s a communal rule being very visibly broken and they’re now flipping tables and seat mats and bowls of bibimbap and yeah, well you get the point. 

And the stupidest thing about that whole phenomenon is that it’s not about anyone actually breaking any rules. The accusation is enough, because that alone brings up disturbance of peace. Allegations are enough of a dealbreaker, because according to this logic, conformity, unity and upholding the status quo is the only thing that truly matters. “If you had been good enough, no one would accuse you of anything anyway, right?” No smoke without fire kind of logic. Except that there might have been no smoke, either, just one one-sided confession that had questionable motives.

And I mean? I wouldn’t mind if Wonho had been accused of something... well, actually criminal. I’m ready to take the potential victim’s side if it’s about rape, murder, sexual harassment or other serious assaults, because catching the real perpetrator in that case is more important than trying to maintain an individual’s reputation. But there was just a weird controversial statement about singular weed use and then false rumors on top of that? Allegations that apparently had been waiting for six convenient years to be brought up, now that all the proof had for certain disappeared? Lord miss me with that bullshit.  

But obviously this is also about a bunch of sasaengs showing twisted and childish solidarity to their own favourite groups. Like. Obviously undereducated teenagers who have paid fuckton of money to support their own oppas and eonnis are going to literally pee their pants from happiness if a powerful group like Monsta X is removed from their way and they can continue to try to... well what ever they’re even trying to achieve. Like yeah, kpop groups are trying to beat each other in the same exact game, overpower each other in the same  music genre, trying to win the same exact prizes, find concert venues in a very limited list of suitable places... so their anti fans would love to create scandals and crises so that their own morally pure group could then shine in stead and rise over all the others. 

But I mean, that shit is going to hit their own group at some point, too, so it just proves they’re very short-sighted, instant-gratification-seeking childish twats. Also? It’s very, very Korean to think only the most, most popular groups ever even deserve to exist. Most less popular groups have a relatively steady fanbase internationally, but they are not at all visible in Korea, because Koreans only count those who can constantly break records and become number ones in literally everything. Which, yeah, stems from their general culture, where everything and everyone is ranked. Universities are ranked, students are ranked, restaurants, stores, skincare products... and it’s embarrassing to admit you’re not getting A+ scores in your every single exams you’ve ever done. It’s embarrassing to not be graduating from SKY universities. It’s embarrassing to not be the first in everything, because only number ones can ever be celebrated or praised. The entire culture is encouraging everyone to be extremely competitive and gamble through their entire lives in order to gain social currency (hence those silly little games in every variety show or fucking trying-to-decide-where-to-eat videos idols release). 

So... as a foreigner, it just feels stupid, awkward and unnecessary, because obviously the game is going to become more and more intense and serious the more players are in it and the longer it continues, which then means the smallest flaws and mistakes in the game can suddenly gain such enormous proportions. And here I am thinking I literally do not give a single fuck whether my own fav group becomes as popular as BTS because there’s only one number one but billions of competitors and it’s a waste of time, money and effort if only one position in the entire planet is enough to satisfy you. 

Then again? If knetz literally choose to make their own life paths as hard and unforgiving as possible, there’s nothing I can do about that. It’s going to hurt them the worst at some point, and I can’t say I’d necessarily run out of my way to help them when it’s their time to take in all the hits. 

god it WILL NOT stop bothering me until i talk about it. the way we got here. it’s not just about the book anymore, not at all, and it’s certainly never been about “shipping”, at this point it’s how helpless the tactics of the guy make me feel.

step one: refer to people who have read previous venom books and noticed the trend throughout the nineties to portray eddie and the symbiote as a man and an agender alien in an ambiguously or not-so-ambiguously romantic relationship, which was picked up on and completely unambiguously canonised in the very last run, consistently refer to these people as “shippers”, lovingly condescend to them, do not ever treat “the ship” as existing beyond their imagination

[I LOVE THAT YOU GUYS EXIST]

result: make people forget that this is a complete misrepresentation and he has received no criticism whatsoever for “not making a ship canon” because that is not what he did, he decanonised it and then denied doing so and painted everyone it ever meant something to as essentially deluded - and, considering that that’s all they are, he’s being awfully kind and accommodating, isn’t he?

evaluation: a reason to harass him? no! really kind of manipulative? yes!

step two: actively seek out these no-good shippers on tumblr! tell them that you’re watching them! read their detailed posts in which they express their grievances about your comic book to their friends and misrepresent their points on your twitter so your bajillion followers can affirm that Those People are categorically wrong about everything!

[EDDIE IS CODEPENDENT]

people are mad at him because he said eddie was codependent! not because he’s reframing the extremely rare story of a troubled queer relationship that was ultimately still a redemptive force in these characters’ lives as an unhealthy compulsion that corrupts, hm, what a fresh and unfamiliar take, no reason why this would strike a nerve - and, recently, of course, as something inherently abusive, every bit of hope and change for the better vile and fake.

literally just start vaguing about people’s personal tumblr blogs on your professional twitter account with the little, little blue checkmark and everything, use that to make passive-aggressive references to people’s posts! why not!

[LOVE EACH OTHER]

people talk about how they like a symbiote and its host getting along (and they did, that very night, talk quite a lot about ngozi)? that is so dumb and lame.

[EVERYTHING IS AWESOME]

people get sick of edgy shock factor writing that throws one dark theme after another at them without treating any of them with the consideration they deserve? people expect some moments of levity in a venom book?

they’re asking for stories with no conflict where nothing bad ever happens! but it’s okay, he knows better, he knows you just don’t know what you want! it’s not like endless sadness is just as likely to be dreadfully boring or unintentionally hilarious as endless happiness!

result: o w n e d god he sure is shutting down every point no one has ever made

evaluation: a reason to harass him? no! really kind of manipulative? yes!

step three: literally get so mad at people on tumblr talking about your comic that you not only boil their opinions down to THE SHIIIIP but literally say that their opinions don’t matter because they literally would never say it “to your face” literally because it’s “easy to be brave on tumblr”

literally

say these words

[IT’S EASY TO BE BRAVE ON TUMBLR]

call people chicken shits for NOT talking to you directly! and then! BLOCK everybody who talks to you directly! or quote retweet them so your followers can descend like vultures! actually acknowledge that it takes bravery to interact with you if you’re in the Tumblr Demographic, you know, one of Those People, and frame yourself as in the right for it???

am i losing my mind???

[SIX PEOPLE ON TUMBLR]

get so mad at people on tumblr talking about your comic that you not only claim they’re the only people ever to talk badly of it but imply that you’re one step away from namedropping the specific perpetrators. that’s not ominous at all!

it’s an age-old question: how many times does one of marvel’s top writers with legions of fans have to imply his antagonistic awareness of your specific existence before you’re on a first name basis? and also paranoid?

result: stir shit. be a shit stirrer. faint when your shit stirring does in fact stir shit. you can’t go “you would never” and be surprised when people do, you... can’t...

evaluation: a reason to harass him? no! really kind of manipulative? yes!

step four: whip out your ally card... to whip the people you’re supposed to be allied to with it. try to use your knowledge of queer issues to shut down actual queer people.

[I DON’T THINK IT’S APPROPRIATE TO ASSUME GENDER]

either that, or straight-up make a “did you just assume my gender” joke. i can’t find the original tweet anymore, so it’s possible it was that and he deleted it because it was too blatant, lol.

result: MAYBE YOU GUYS WERE THE PROBLEMATIC ONES ALL ALONG

evaluation: a reason to harass him? no! really kind of manipulative? yes!

step five: remember that interview where he outright stated that he just wants to, just to be the definite venom run? just to put the biggest dent in canon he can? just to break everybody’s toys and emerge victorious as the one person with the valid take on venom?

yeah, those things become more noticeable in the actual book, over time, and acceptance of that is, uh, not universal? not everybody’s up for him spending several issues in a row on e s t a b l i s h i n g  d o m i n a n c e by having eddie sit around as other characters tell him that a ton of stuff other writers from michelinie to thompson to costa to kaminski to slott to jenkins have done actually sucked and was wrong and fake and never happened? through retcons that make no sense, like, factually don’t fit?

people don’t like you walking back character and relationship development to further your end goal of recasting the symbiote as the personification of addiction and abuse instead of itself a survivor of extreme abuse who has been constantly denied personhood in a way that is frighteningly resonant and who has been going through a genuine redemption arc for years now?

people don’t like you acting like eddie never had a reason for being who he is before and you had to make one up? one that doesn’t fit the character at all, which you didn’t realise because you apparently thought the character had no characterisation before you came along?

you can imagine how these things might spark nerd rage?

and you can probably imagine who this nerd rage was blamed on, yeah?

these criticisms inherently require knowledge of venom canon, because they’re largely about disrespect for it, these criticisms are not related to shipping of any kind - but of course the only thing people could possibly be mad about is the "ship", the only ones making a fuss are those “shippers”, those casuals, Those People who only care about One Thing and don’t understand the real gritty reality of the, god you get it i’m making fun

[I KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT]

you’re the only one, don. it’s true.

and i know, i know for a fact, that he’s been aware of criticism from other groups all along, that he was, for example, witness to this livestream that spends like a solid hour a month mercilessly dragging him through the dirt, and you know what the extent of his response was?

thanks for checking the book out.

that’s it. that’s all. this guy hasn’t gotten any less loud about criticising him, either. wishing for his book’s cancellation and retconning. but nothing more. he gets to keep to himself. he is #valid.

people have been taking the piss out of him on youtube, on reddit. only tumblr ever earned his ire. only tumblr gets namedropped at convention panels.

and now, now more than ever? you better believe your regular run-of-the-mill nerds, straight, male, utterly uninterested in the icky stuff, everything, are mad. almost everyone who’s truly tits deep in venom lore is mad.

and so he’s said he’s received threats. and i’m sure he has. i’ve received threats. you’ve received threats. it’s never okay. it sure as shit never helps to send them.

he’s gotten a lot of fucking inappropriate personal vitriol! lots of it actually “ship”-related! i’m categorically against contacting the guy for any reason!

but who is to blame? who do people accept as being to blame? who do news outlets report on as being to blame? when, i presume, not every single one of them actually went “i’m doing this specifically because i’m a (thunder clap) shipper”? when large-scale retcons are literally always met with nerd rage? when a shipper-less fandom probably still would’ve had threats?

[THIS IS INSANE]

[IT’S THE SHIPPERS]

result: if all criticism = “shippers”, and “shippers” = harassment, then everyone who has no actual idea of what’s going on but who doesn’t like “shippers” is automatically on his side and nobody who isn’t a “shipper” wants to risk the association by criticising him.

get this stuff out to his followers, to news outlets, to people completely uninvolved and contextless, and watch the bile run over everywhere because lots of people are ready to accept this narrative in comic book spaces.

have people in the replies and comments eagerly discussing how this is more proof that c+o+m+i+c+s+gate was right and they’re the only reasonable ones. how disgusting and crazy "shippers” are. how donny should keep doing his best to trigger the gays. there’s no pushback against these ideas.

and i’m so fucking stuck between wanting to defend the man, wring my hands and apologise on behalf of the other These People, because i don’t see anything justifiable in their actions, and in being... just... just so frustrated... with everything... with throwing everyone out to the dogs... and claiming that he doesn’t mean to... when he has this whole history of belittling "shippers” specifically... of making sure their public image is that of people who just don’t know what they’re talking about and are in no way worth empathising with... of only drawing attention to the aggressive ones and blocking the reasonable ones

when he literally only stands to benefit from doing all this. 

this is massive amounts of free positive pr.

this makes him essentially immune to criticism of any kind.

evaluation: a reason to harass him? no! really kind of manipulative? yes! 

i forgot! somewhere along the line, he did do something very good and disavowed association with co/mics/ga/te!

[C0M1C5G8]

why the fuck am i censoring? tumblr search stopped working decades ago.

anyway, it should come as no particular surprise why these people assumed he would side with them. not that any high profile writer who values his standing would, really. are there any? maybe there are, i’m not up to date on this drama.

i just think it’s funny - genuinely not his fault, but hilarious - that this was apparently enough to inspire a “boycott”? and it was a fart in the wind?

which is the least surprising thing ever because there is actually nothing whatsoever to hold these people’s ire to be found in venom? excluding aliens, there has been one real and present character who isn’t a white guy in 11 issues? it is actively less queer than it was before? donny has never caved to the essjaywoo pressure in any way, shape or form? what were they... thinking? it’s almost like these people are dumb?

all they've done is ensure that, without it actually doing anything, venom gets the commendation for being A Comic The Gators Don't Like?

anyway.

what do we do moving forward? i don’t know. nothing. not harassing anyone. keep being salty on tumblr. do not engage him. i think i’m more about stalling the chain reaction he’s caused than the man himself. if you’re not a “shipper”, of course, keep posting your criticism, maybe stand up for “shippers” who are being dogpiled over genuine criticism, don’t let people say This Is All Proof Of How You Can’t Have Queer Content Because Queers Are Crazy.

and be nice to mike costa.

The (indie) Kids Are(n’t) Alright.

[piece by Nick Southall of Stylus Magazine which has sadly been defunct since 2007; I’m reposting it here because I had to dig through the internet archive to find it]

The following was posted by one of our readers in the comments section of our recent Top 50 Singles of 2005 article. 

Posted 12/09/2005 - 08:07:34 AM by tintin1000: i hate this list. but before i get into a rant, i shall tell you all the "rules" which i relied upon to come to the conclusion that this list is a pile of steaming bullshit. (a) this is a snobby list (b) i understand that this is a list of singles, so it cannot include bands like deerhoof or anything because they don't HAVE singles, but ... (c) this is a lame attempt at justifying why you guys like top 40 chart songs ... a shoddly constructed "logical" justification of listening to top 40 songs, with the "indie mag," stylus, as a sort of buffer ... "oh -- we're really into indie music, so that means we can accept pop music from an "elevated" plane of existence or some bullshit like that. okay -- who the hell thinks that the friggin' backstreet boys write "better" songs than the mountain goats?! than the futureheads!? uh ... and sure -- the concept of r. kelly's trapt in the closet is cool, i think, but how in the hell do you distinguish which gwen stefani single is the "best" on the album? is it the originality of the song? nope? is it in the creativity? nope. is it the craftmanship? nope. is it the songwriting? nope. as far as i can tell, you guys compiled a list that should be dubbed "best singles that will get you crunked in 2005," but since you worded everything so perfectly, it sounds like there is an actual intellectual, logical reason behind the creation of the fucking whisper song. the whisper song is about fucking. since when has fucking merited any artistic credibilty? just plain, raw, primitive sex? if you guys like to dance to this shit, cool ... but don't be dumbasses and pretend that you listen to this shit because you actually think it actually has a true artistic quality to it ... damn. 

I usually try and avoid responding directly to people in the comments boxes, unless they ask a specific question about a piece or raise a factual error, because I think it’s slightly unbecoming for writers to be trawling their own work looking for flame wars, but I couldn’t help but respond to our friend tintin1000, initially with a couple of short notes in the comments box, and now here, in more length and with more thought. 

tintin1000 isn’t alone in his indi(e)gnation (I’m sorry, that’s a terrible forced pun)—you can see dozens, if not hundreds of other people spilling outraged bile into the comments boxes every week in protest at our temerity in choosing to review a country record favourably (and I’m not talking about Lambchop or Uncle Tupelo) or vote Kelly Clarkson as our single of the year ahead of, say, the latest 7” by The Ambivalent Corduroy Medical Students on Squirrel Records which features nine Canadian college graduates banging ukuleles and broken harpsichords and singing about their guinea pig’s gravestone. What’s wrong with us? Why are we pretending to like such manipulative top 40 pop shit? How could we possibly be so short-sighted as to not see the genius inherent in something like Pig On A Stick’s masterful limited edition EP, I’m Ugly, I’m Lonely, All My Friends Are Dead?!Especially when we lavish such shallow, fetishistic praise on hollow, manufactured acts. 

The thing is that Stylus has always loved pop, hip-hop and r’n’b singles, consistently voting them highly in the end-of-year singles lists over the last three years. Just look at the Singles Jukebox articles from the last 9 months—pop music is something we love and something we cover—we’ve never claimed to be an indie website any more than we’ve claimed to be an IDM website (something we used to get accused of every so often when we began). If you’re still not convinced, take a look at the Mission Statement; all we’ve ever been bothered about covering is music, not specific genres. 

So why are indieboys still so vehemently disgusted by our (un)surprising pop-centricity, our schizeclecticism, by the fact that some of us like country records and others like pop records and yet others really do enjoy Clap Your Hands Say Yeah (I’m still not entirely convinced that that particular band isn’t a complex hoax perpetrated by Derek Miller)? I’d wager, for a start, that the majority of our most vocal indieboy naysayers are probably in their late teens rather than their mid-to-late 20s, and that the music they like isn’t just a sonic preference based on what tickles the hairs in their ears in a pleasant way, but that it is a much more deep-seated culture-aesthetic choice. A choice as much about identity as music, perhaps. 

Which is fine, because adolescent cultural choices—hell, adult cultural choices too—are about identity. They’re about peer groups and aspirations and association. The music you like may well help determine the clothes you wear, the friends you keep, how you cut your hair—it’ll certainly determine which clubs or gigs you go to, and who you go with. It’s a chicken / egg conundrum, though, as to which comes first—the music or the identity. Do you like this music because of who you are, or are you making a definite effort to determine who you are and using the music as a tool to do so? Because like it or not, and whether you’re aware of it or not, your cultural choices are a signifier pointing towards who you are. 

Here are a handful of bands and what liking them says about you: 

Interpol - “I am deep, moody, urban and edgy, given to pathos and bad poetry. Please have sex with me, but don’t expect an orgasm.” 

Bright Eyes - “I have read a book about true love and am too scared to treat you badly. Please don’t have sex with me, as I will cry.” 

Embrace - “I really am in it for the music, because the public perception of my favourite band is terrible. Please have sex with me in a slightly dull, monogamous way.” 

Kompakt-style techno - “I transcend the body-mind divide by being intellectually into dancing. Please have sex with me on drugs.” 

Bloc Party - “I am very cool but not as alternative as I’d like to think, and I wish I knew more black people. Please have sex with me, but be careful not to mess-up my hair.” 

Girls Aloud - “I am a shallow pop whore. Let’s fuck! But it will be without true, meaningful emotion.” 

Arcade Fire - “I am into way more cool and obscure stuff than anyone else. Please let me say I had sex with you ages ago, before anyone else.” 

Oasis - “I am a piss-throwing troglodyte misogynist. I am going to date-rape you.”

Each of these assumptions says as much about the inferer as the inferred, if not more so. Each one is a value judgement based on cultural baggage, and everyone’s cultural baggage is different. Most internet-based discussion of music that I’ve come across deals not with what people like, but with what people dislike. What people like is a matter of assumption, some kind of unspoken test to see whether someone is cool enough to be spoken to, to be let into the secret club. You wouldn’t want someone uncool hanging around with the cool kids (on a messageboard, natch) and making them uncool by association because they like, heaven forbid, “The Whisper Song”, would you? 

Ah, “The Whisper Song.” Here’s what tintin1000 said about it: it sounds like there is an actual intellectual, logical reason behind the creation of the fucking whisper song. the whisper song is about fucking. since when has fucking merited any artistic credibilty? just plain, raw, primitive sex? This raises a whole other issue that indieboys can’t stand. Sex. It’s often been stated that indieboys are afraid to dance because they have an intrinsic “fear of the middle of the body,” a post-Victorian-era Catholic / Freudian guilt / paranoia about all things sexual which dates back, perhaps, to Morrissey’s fiercely foppish stance of asexuality and beyond, to Keats or Wordsworth or whoever, and the myth of the sexually-frustrated romantic, the idea that one’s art will be somehow purer if untainted by the dirty touch of lust. But go beyond that, go to Michelangelo sculpting David’s sensuous masculine frame; or all those countless portraits of St. Sebastian, pierced with arrows like an S&M; stunt gone awry, loincloth barely covering his genitals; all those pre-Raphaelite female nudes; every film to ever reveal more flesh than grandmother would like; to Led Zeppelin wailing about plain, raw, primitive sex and John Lennon trying to make the end of “A Day In The Life” sound like a great big musical orgasm. Very few people would question Björk’s artistic credibility, and she’s written countless songs about sex. People are rushing to proclaim Kate Bush’s Aerial a work of genius, and it’s positively dripping with eroticism. Sex is not the be-all-and-end-all of human existence, and to get too caught up in its alluring juices and scents can screw with your head (just ask Michael Douglas or any random Tory politician) but to claim that plain, raw, primitive sex has never inspired any worthwhile art is the folly of the hungry, short-sighted virgin. Pop music in particular (and The Mountain Goats and Deerhoof are as much pop music as Charlotte Church or Sisqo) is about sex. 

And of course sex is key to identity—as if I needed to say that after the assumptions about bands above. Anyone who ever wore skinny jeans or dyed their hair black did so because they wanted some of their idol’s allure by proxy, because they thought that listening to this record and wearing those shoes would get them laid. Everyone. Except me, of course, because I’m above it all. 

The problem with our intrepid hero tintin1000 is that he’s finding his identity, and is thus vulnerable to having the fragile foundations of that identity shaken. And so he sees Mountain Goats, an act he loves for their literate, melodic music made in the cottage-industry style, unadorned by commercial trappings but instead blessed with deep insight into the human condition, at number 50 on our list and is pleased, thinking, hoping and assuming that the rest of the list will continue to reaffirm his identity. Because he trusts Stylus, possibly, as someone he can talk to about these things. And there’s the fucking Ying Yang Twinz, wtf? And Gwen Stefani? And other music that is liked by the people he sees at college or in town and takes an instant dislike to for their shallow natures and unthinking ways, and it jars his assumptions about what it means to like Mountain Goats, about what it says about him when he realises what he thinks liking Kelly Clarkson says about other people. 

The thing is that once you stop worrying about what owning (and more importantly liking) a Girls Aloud record says about you, you can start taking it on its own merits, which are (generally) pretty plentiful. Something like Die Hard is a great film because it knows what it is and what it does and it executes its plan with zero faffing around—there’s no narrative fat in that film (unlike, say, the odious Goodfellas), every single event is a plot device, and there’s joy to be found in such craftsmanship, never mind the actual tangible visceral thrill of the finished article once we get past ontological rumination on the efficiency of the screenplay. Likewise Girls Aloud’s records are faultless exercises in meta-pop constructivism, not so much songs as processions of hooks and choruses with the boring, fatty verses left over for the likes of Okkervil River instead. And, of course, as with Die Hard there is the sheer physical joy of listening to them, of dancing to them, getting caught up in the beats and the insidious melodic hooks, which outweighs even the music-journalistic catnip attraction of playing spot-the-reference. 

And once you’re past the stage of crushing insecurity and aspirational identity positing, the idiocy inherent in statements like how in the hell do you distinguish which gwen stefani single is the "best" on the album? becomes clear. You distinguish your favourite (no such thing as objectivity, kids) Gwen Stefani song on Love Angel Music Baby in exactly the same manner as you would your favourite song on The Sunset Tree—by listening to the record and choosing the song that you like most, for whatever reason(s) it is that you ever like any song. Until your superego stops screaming at you that it’s bad to like Gwen Stefani though, that’s not going to happen. 

It works in stages though, this music / identity nexus. As a child one likes simple things, the multi-coloured hues of pop music perhaps, but once one senses the transition to adulthood one puts away childish things. By writing off whole areas of music for the simple reason that “it’s not the kind of thing someone like me listens to” you are, quite simply, denying yourself a whole lot of pleasures, both frivolous and profound. Malcolm X said in his autobiography that “children have a lesson adults should learn, to not be ashamed of failing, but to get up and try again. Most of us adults are so afraid, so cautious, so 'safe,' and therefore so shrinking and rigid and afraid that it is why so many humans fail. Most middle-aged adults have resigned themselves to failure.” It’s not just failing that we shouldn’t be ashamed of. A major finding in neuroscience in recent years is the extent to which our brains display advanced levels of ‘neural plasticity.’ We are not forever ‘hardwired’ for rigid modes of behaviour; we are not static ‘slaves’ to our DNA. There is a remarkable degree to which we can change ingrained patterns of thought, intention and practice. Our identities are not fixed, are not immutable—admitting that you enjoy a Britney record unironically will not destroy your future character. And that goes for an awful lot of things besides music. 

Of course this is all blatant assumption, and doesn’t mean anything at all. Except, perhaps, that you should give in to your ids, indie kids. 

Gaslighting, homophobia, harassment, etc.

This is a copy of a journal that was/is on deviantArt since the incident happened there, but I’m putting some of my records here when it involves harassment and art theft.

Warning: This includes harassment towards minors by a predatory adult, homophobic behavior, gaslighting, and other predatory behaviors.

Another Update:

Archived here for better viewing:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190704135920/https://www.deviantart.com/haleyc7995/journal/Harassment-and-Discrimination-About-My-Opinion-802306133

It’s one thing to harass me, but going out and threatening others isn’t okay.

Update, a freaking year later:

https://www.deviantart.com/haleyc7995/journal/Everyone-report-this-journal-for-harassment-802227692

Apparently I'm part of the LGBT+ Mafia because I said it's homophobic to go out of your way to say our existence is wrong? Not sure where they got that idea but they chose to dig up this old warning journal since they were harassing Queer people, and apparently think it's still okay to do so. 

 Also going to note that trying to use neurodivergency as an excuse for our actions isn't okay and is ableist, basically spitting in the face of other neurodivergent people. 

---

OH WAIT THERE'S MORE!

This guy has sexually harassed minors. Also much more disgusting rhetoric than I expected in stamps but also in other comments towards minors. Please be advised of the explicit comments when clicking on this journal.

[Journal redacted by minor]

It's one thing for him to harass me, another adult, but to sexually harass and target minors is beyond disgusting, and illegal. If anyone wants an example of what a predator is, here it is.

---

Nvm, not last update.

Due to more and more people coming forward, I'm going to keep updating this journal, and adding links provided to me. I'm going to state that I'm so, so sorry to all of those who have been harmed by the three perpetrators in this journal. Hopefully from awareness comes prevention of further victims.

It was also brought up to me that my journal skin was causing issues for mobile users, so since this journal is very serious in nature, I have removed it so no matter what platform it should be legible.

This Journal is being added because it provides more information. TW (Rapey Rhetoric, body shaming, harassment, etc)

[Journal removed]

---

Last Update (hopefully): Due to the garbage he keeps posting, I decided to block both his accounts because he's just rehashing what others have said about him, and now pinning it on victims lmao. When I told him I didn't tolerate how he was sexually harassing women and belittling sexual assault victims, apparently I'm the one harassing trauma victims now?? 

For the record...the only person I've blocked is him, which makes it funnier, but okay Chad™

Also going to state that being neurodivergent is not a justification for marginalizing others, ever, and is a spit in the face and throws other neurodivergent people under the bus. As I said, most of my friends with autism are in the LGBT+ community, and a majority of my friends are neurodivergent in general. So am I. It's never an excuse to marginalize others,

ever.

Apologies to everyone who had to deal with him, his nonsense, and has to deal with people like this in general.

And sorry, but marginalized groups speaking out against people actively trying to harm and oppress them isn't and will never be fascism. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

---

Very, very IMPORTANT Edit:

It is fairly easy to tell, but EmpatheticDesign is the same person as GrandtheftAutoOnline, and uses the duo of accounts to block evade.

I was made aware by others spreading my journal that this person is known for this behavior, has harassed others in the past, and belittled victims of trauma, including rape victims. It's one thing to be a homophobic garbage pile, but to go out of your way to harm and belittle those who have suffered through serious trauma? So yeah, please let others be aware so they are not harassed as well.

Edit: The second journal was removed at the request of the victim, who didn't want to associate with their abuser, or be found again. I was allowed though to give some details about what happened, so I think it's best that I post a screenshot of our notes, censoring the names.

 https://www.deviantart.com/uwugirls/journal/Stay-safe-guys-749736306

At this point, it's beyond just harassing the LGBT+ community, and they seem to harass, sexualize, and belittle victims and women in general. Please be aware of this and stay safe.

Triple Edit: The person mentioned below, EmpathicDesign proceeded to post homophobic garbage on other people's posts so yeah, they kind of just admitted to be homophobic which is why they are so bitter lmao.

Double Edit: Apparently pointing out homophobes is facist now lmao. This was a great magnet for homophobic garbage so y'all can also block GrandTheftAutoOnline while you're at it, since they are trying to compare facism and oppression to someone pointing out homophobia. Clearly they don't know what facism actually is, what oppression is, and just want to justify hate speech without consequences.

Edit: I'm going to put this here so others know to also bock/avoid this person, who has made a variety of stamps targeting the LGBT+ community, and decided to think it was a smart idea to defend this person's discriminatory and phobic behavior as an "opinion."

Suuuure it isn't...

Then this lovely stamp shows they don't even know what "safe" spaces refer to whatsoever and they'd just rather shame Queer folk. Ya know, besides trying to avoid admitting that they are just phobic.

So yeah, here's another person that blatantly discriminates if you want to add to your list of "people that don't deserve any of your time." ------

Being gay myself, and having to deal with this on far too consistent of a basis, I thought I'd do my part to warn others so they can avoid some of this in their lives.

Apparently HaleyC7995 has done these things before, but I wanted to warn others who are Queer and may want to block people who go about spewing homophobic rhetoric.

I don't suggest going to her profile if you are sensitive to fat fetishizing, vore, and sexualization of a potential minor character (the character is in high school so there is a large possibility that they are a minor). Also racist depictions of characters.

People tried to explain why what they were saying wasn't okay, how it was homophobic, but she turned it around to blame the victims for her actions and other inappropriate behavior. She continued to say she was "misunderstood" about what she said, despite multiple times saying how being gay was "wrong" and overall seems quite content continue to say such things.

 It started by saying something unnecessarily homophobic on an art piece, then when the artist made a status saying how people needed to stop being homophobic at them, they posted this on that status:

As you can see here, many people expressed how this was innapropriate:

 https://comments.deviantart.com/62/13481362/4588682762 

Apologies to the artist who was subjected to this person. You aren't the first victim, and hopefully you will be one of the last. For those who aren't Queer and don't realize this yet...you can't "turn" gay. She for some reason acts as if it's a choice lmao. 

And well, many people reacted angrily, and she decided to "apologize" which wasn't an apology at all, but once again shifting blame and saying that it was just her "opinion." 

 For future records, hate speech isn't considered an opinion. It's hate speech and bigotry. An opinion is that I don't like raisins in my carrot cake because they make the cake texture gross. 

Credit to this person who tried very, very hard to explain why this wasn't okay. This had to be the most patient person trying to explain why homophobia isn't an opinion. 

 People continued to be mad, because well...the obvious lack of empathy, blaming others, and continuing to persist with the idea that being gay was wrong and a sin. 

Other people tried a well, especially those who have dealt with this person before she was banned on a previous account. She was ban evading for a while but it seems the accounts were unbanned now.

 She continues even with me to say she's "unaware" of what she's doing. It's obvious she's not, and at this point she gets very gaslighty and trying to flip it once again on everyone else. 

I was blocked after this so I couldn't respond, though as an angry gay person I had choice words. Unfortunately, due to how she's behaving, and how she has a history to blame everyone but herself for her own actions, I don't expect she'll be changing anytime soon. If you are Queer, have Queer friends, or just are very tired of blatant phobic behavior I'd just suggest blocking her. She's not willing to change or learn, but that doesn't mean we have to subject ourselves to hatred.  I am so sorry for those she's already caused harm to, for those who tried so hard and had to put up with this, and for those who have had to deal with her even before this incident.

The Punisher - ‘Trouble the Water’ Review

"He that sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind."

Frank Castle is a killer. That's what he does best, that's how he is perceived and probably how he perceives himself. This could have changed after he avenged the death of his wife and kids and decided to take a new direction in life. A clean slate. Maybe being a killer didn't define him after all. The second the circumstances asked for the Punisher, though, there he was again. But Frank Castle is also a hero. He has a good heart and does all he can to protect the innocent; his victims are the bad guys and he makes the world a better place every time he takes one down. But can a man with such brutal and animalistic methods ever be seen as a hero of the people?

One of the reasons I enjoyed "Trouble the Water" so much was that it portrayed Frank as a hero and gave him recognition for it. At the beginning of the episode, Sheriff Hardin is trying to put the pieces together and can't trust Frank, but as the hour unfolds and Frank displays his honor and battlefield capability, the Sheriff changes his mind.

Throughout the first half of the episode, nearly every choice the Sheriff made drove me nuts. Surely, he couldn't trust the three people he had in custody, but whatever Frank, Rachel and Marlena were involved with was clearly much bigger than what that small precinct was capable of handling. Hardin's obstinacy nearly got everyone killed. I honestly thought the situation was going to end with a huge blood bath and I was happy that was not the case. Well, not for the good guys, anyway. In the end, Hardin knew the only reason he and his team made out alive was Frank. When he thanked Castle for all he did, that was a rare validation for Castle and a well earned one.

The battle in the precinct was really well constructed. From the moment the power went down and communications were off, the episode delivered one great scene after another. Facing a nearly certain death sentence, Hardin and his deputies discussed the possibility of giving the prisoners away. That was realistic and I liked how no one was portrayed as selfish for considering that option. They just wanted to make it out alive and be reasonable about their odds, and Frank was literally asking to be sent outside. It took a gun-wounded Deputy Ogden to close the case and have them decide to take the more noble path. Seriously, Hardin had a good group of people with him.

Another moment of worth was the conversation between Hardin and Pilgrim. In last episode's review, Shari said "I am curious to see how someone who detests profanity, technology, and apparently casual sex is not averse to hiring assassins, buying off the police, or committing murder." Well, now we have an explanation for that. Upon identifying the Sheriff as a man of faith, Pilgrim suggests that he shouldn't waste his time protecting "godless people." And that's how usually these fanatic types justify the violence they perpetrate, isn't it? As long as the target are sinners, people who profess other faiths or "godless people," not only it isn't a problem to take them out, it might as well be God's work. It's despicable, really, but it's a twisted moral that makes sense to religious extremists.

The opening scene of "Trouble the Water" took us a little inside Pilgrim's world. We learned that his wife, Rebecca, is ill, they have two kids and he was commissioned by an influential religious couple, Anderson and Eliza Schultz – hello, Martha Kent –, to retrieve the photos Rachel is carrying around. The way Eliza walked with Pilgrim's children as she said she'd take care of them gave me the impression that Pilgrim didn't have the option of turning the mission down. Not that I think it matters to him, choice or no choice, he'd probably see it as God's will and go for it anyway.

Anderson said that one member of their group had been thrown in the Lion's Den. But we don't know what that means exactly, do we? The longer Rachel takes to explain what is going on, the more I resent her. On an intellectual level, I dislike this choice of hers because it's mostly a stalling technique to stretch this particular plot. But even accepting that this is how the writers chose to render the tale, I just find Rachel to be incredibly selfish. She is not evil, she even shows some sympathy for the people hurt in the crossfire, but she clearly doesn't care enough. There were bodies dropping dead left and right, and even before the possibility of more people getting killed trying to protect her, she still wasn't willing to give these people the grace of knowing what they were about to die for. On the other hand, I liked that she helped Frank get out of the handcuffs. Sure, she knew her survival chances would greatly improve, but I still enjoyed their silent understanding.

Elsewhere, Billy Russo is out and I honestly didn't think it would happen this soon. Who is right about him, Madani or Dumont? Billy is dangerous, full memories or not, so Madani has a point there, but is he faking it or is he truly damaged and traumatized? I'm not sure Madani is convinced it's all an act, I believe she is desperate to be on top of things for once, to be one step ahead, so she needs to commit to her theory. It's desperation, not professionalism, that is driving her every action right now, and she will be no match against Russo at this state. At least she was smart enough to take his diary and go get Frank. And what an entrance, indeed, with perfect timing. Now she saved Frank's life too and they can both help each other.

Bits and Pieces

- Title musings: "Trouble the Water," as explained in the episode, comes from the Bible and refers to a pool whose water was troubled by an angel and the first person to get into it would then be healed. John 5 narrates an occasion in which Jesus healed a man who never had anyone to put him into the moving water. The expression gained a new meaning with the song "Wade in the Water," sang by the choir in the beginning of the episode. The song says "God is going to trouble the water", a reference to when the Red Sea, parted to let the Hebrews pass, closes leading to the deaths of every men of Pharaoh's army. It's safe to say that Frank was the one who troubled the water this time, killing every men of Pilgrim's army.

- Where is Micro? I miss Micro.

- Deputy Murphy took a while to get out of the nothing-ever-happens-here mode. I loved her nonchalant attitude.

- Josh Stewart is doing good work as John Pilgrim, but Pilgrim's perpetual dead gaze kind of drives me nuts.

- So, Rachel's real name isn't Rachel, but I decided to call her Rachel in this review for the practical reason of still not knowing her real name. Some of her aliases are Susan, Peggy and Stephanie, and one of those could turn out to be her actual name.

- I liked that Rachel returned Ogden his five dollars.

- Anderson and Eliza Schultz sponsor Rebecca's medical treatment.

- Pilgrim has three faded tattoos, at least. One is some type of cross symbol, another one looked like a skull, and on his back the wings of an angel.

- I had the impression that the writers were setting up a possible partnership between Marlena and Frank. I was sad to see her go, but maybe she isn't really gone and now has a motive to switch sides?

- How did Frank leave the precinct without being seen by that army of killers?

- Russo with that mask, walking quickly holding a woman close to him, and no one thought something suspicious was going on? Really?

Quotes

Eliza: "If we serve faithfully, we will reap rewards."

Frank: "How's the leg?" Marlena: "Next time, I'll hit more than your hand." Inmate: "You two married? Sure sound married."

Sheriff Hardin: "I ain't buying this Pollyanna routine."

Sheriff Hardin: "Delayed gratification's good. It built the middle class."

Frank: "If you run, you can't see what's coming up from behind you."

I liked this episode a lot. Carefully constructed, climatic and with a wonderful payoff. Three and a half out of four Bible quotes.

Lamounier

RWBY Musings #42: Could Jaune Arc Become the Next King of Vale?

@megashadowdragon​ asked “ its funny that you brought up jaune wielding the relic of destruction like excalibur since I made a post on jaunes secondary inspiration being king arthur hhere what are your thoughts 

megashadowdragon(.)tumblr(.)com/post/171244914427/jaunes-secondary-inspiration-is-king-arthur/embed.

But what are your thoughts on the theory?

Squiggles Answers:

Whelp, as you already know, I read through your post and of course, liked it. It looks like I’ve made yet another unintentional musing about Jaune Arc to be added to a new segment in my roster of theories.

Anyways, you wanted my thoughts so y’know whatcha gotta do. Keep reading fam.

To be frank, I was more looking at the King of Vale’s origin story being inspired by King Arthur rather than Jaune Arc. However based on the info presented in your theory thoughts, you do present some pretty interesting evidence that could link both the King and Jaune sharing inspirational roots with the story of King Arthur.

As I mentioned in my musing post from yesterday, I’m not really familiar with the full story of King Arthur, but the more I think about it, the more it makes me hope that one day we’ll get a better look into the full origin story of the King of Vale.

I guess this could help add to my little theory about the Relic of Destruction being buried with the King of Vale since @bloomfireprincess brought up the point of there possibly being a decoy relic planted inside the Vault of the Summer Maiden. It would make sense if this is the case. Compared to the other relics, the Relic of Destruction could be deemed as the most powerful of them all or at least the most dangerous thus the greater need to keep it out of enemy’s clutches. I can definitely see a fake relic being used as a diversion in Shade while the real relic is held elsewhere, in the last place someone would expect it to be. Inside a secret hidden tomb in which the remains of its former wielder was laid to rest.

I’d like to believe that the Relic of Destruction somewhat works like the Elder Wand from the Harry Potter series. Not just any mere mortal can wield it and once it’s chosen its recipient, it forms a bond with them that basically binds the weapon and its power to this person so that the only way for another to take it would be in death. And even then, another worthy wielder must be chosen.

The part that I pulled from your thoughts, megashadowdragon, was what you pointed out about Team JNPR.

“....For one, Jaune uses the stereotypical Knight Templar combination of sword and shield he also has blond hair, which is associated with Nobility, similar to a king. Arthur’s early fighting style was similar to Jaune’s clumsy fighting style of swinging around with brute force, though eventually becoming better in combat. They both descend from well-renowned families. What’s also interesting is found in the name of his team, JNPR. It’s spelled using the first letter of their first names, but should the last names (Arc, Valkyrie, Lie, Nikos) be arranged in said order, it would form AVLN, similar to Avalon, the final resting place of King Arthur...”

I thought this was really, really cool. It helps justify my hunch that maybe the Relic of Destruction was buried with its original wielder: the King of Vale, similar to how Excalibur was buried along with King Arthur. I know this is all just speculation right now but coincidence, I think not. If Jaune was inspired by King Arthur then not only could this be his connection to the King of Vale (as an alternative to the main assumption that Jaune is related to the King) but it also spells a bit of what Jaune’s real destiny could be in the long run of RWBY.

The story could be gearing up to make Jaune the next wielder of the Relic of Destruction. It’d be interesting if Jaune’s eventual love interest turns out to be the descendent of the King of Vale.

Although RWBY has spoken of monarchs ruling over the respective kingdoms, we have yet to meet any of them. We haven’t even gotten to meet the infamous councils that are also said to help govern these kingdoms. The only exception was General James Ironwood who also acts as the Headmaster of Atlas Academy.

I’m just going to toss this idea out there for kicks but...what if...

When the gang go in search of the Relic of Destruction, they are surprised to discover that since the Fall of Beacon, the relic was moved to a different location while a decoy was planted in its place as a failsafe in the event of the antagonists coming after it in the long run.

Their search then takes them back to Vale; not the main part of it that houses Beacon Academy but another area of the continent of Sanus that we have yet to explore. I can see the hero team easily returning back to Vale from Vacuo because, is it just me or did anyone else notice that Vacuo and Vale are practically part of the same continental area except the only thing separating them is a patch of desert?

Forgive me if I am super late in making this realization. I’ve looked at the map of Remnant several times for my musings but I only just now realized that Vale and Vacuo were neighbouring kingdoms sharing the continent of Sanus. Somehow I always pegged that the kingdoms were all divided geographically.

Anyways, moving along with my hunch. It is upon the group’s return to Vale, where, not only will they reunite with friends and character we haven’t seen since the Beacon Arc (like Glynda, Team CFVY, the rest of Team SSSN, etc) but they will additionally get the opportunity to meet with the Council of Vale who by extension will introduce them to the Royal Family of Vale; the descendants of the original King of Vale including his great-great-granddaughter who Jaune takes an immediate fancy to.

If things don’t work out romantically for Jaune with Weiss (although I’m still a sucker rooting for my White Knight ship; even if it’s just a close friendship), then perhaps another heiress character, this time to the throne of Vale who Jaune can share a connection with because both of their ancestors fought in the Great War.

If Jaune Arc gains the Relic of Destruction, then marries the successor of its original wielder who is next in line to the throne of Vale then...by extension, Jaune could become the next future King of Vale.

Again, this is just me spit-balling here. I know as a character Jaune gets a lot of shit sometimes from the FNDM. For me, from the beginning, I’ve never had any issue with Jaune. As a matter of fact, I like Jaune as a character. He isn’t my favourite. That golden crown goes to Oscar Pine, of course.  

However Jaune is a character that I saw had a lot of potential for some great character growth. While the story of RWBY mainly centres around the four main girls: Ruby Rose, Weiss Schnee, Blake Belladonna and Yang Xiao Long; nevertheless, I do believe the story may be also gearing up to have Jaune play a major role later down in the series. I didn’t know what that role was but, now I think I kinda have a vague idea of what that might be. 

 It will have something to do with the Great War, particularly the predetermined second Great War that has been foreshadowed since Volume 3’s conclusion.

As a matter of fact, the possibility of another war happening in Remnant has been alluded to since Volume 2.

Great War II

 Oscar Pine refreshed our memories with that possibility too last season when he mentioned to Ruby that, ‘the world was about to go to war all over again.’

Since the story has been heavily focusing on the attacks on the main four schools, we forgot about the mess that is to come in the form of another possible Great War between the Four Kingdoms.

With all the commotion that has been stirring in the story over the Maidens and the Relics, we forgot that there might be a war on the horizon. Or at least I forgot about it. Don’t know about any other fan or RWBY theorist.

But there is going to be another war in Remnant and I’m not just referring to the one between the forces of good and evil: Salem vs. Ozpin’s fractions. Oh no!

There’s also the war to come between the kingdoms. And I think...the death of Leonardo Lionheart will be the catalyst that will allow the story to reintroduce the whole Great War II aspect into the plot for the series. After all, Leonardo was a member of the Mistral Council.

A man who had a say in the running of the kingdom as the Headmaster of its main huntsman academy. With the death of one of their members now at their feet, I doubt the Mistral Council will remain anonymous and silent anymore so there is a high chance that fans can meet this elusive group for V6 at long last.

A Council of Snakes

I’m not sure how exactly this will play into Great War II. I just have a feeling it will which will also spell an additional problem for our heroes. Up until this point in the story, we’ve only heard of these alleged Councils that help to govern the respective Kingdoms of Remnant in passing. We have yet to meet any of them in the flesh yet.

Perhaps we will for V6 with the conclusion to the Mistral Arc following the aftermath of the Battle of Haven. I know our heroes are all celebrating the success of one-upping the antagonists and acquiring their first Relic, but what’s going to happen once the smoke is cleared and the revelation of the death of Leonardo Lionheart, Faunus and Headmaster of Haven Academy makes headlines around Anima.

Someone is going to be held accountable for Leonardo’s untimely demise once his corpse is found dead in his office in Haven. Someone is going to be held accountable for the attack on Haven Academy. And something tells me that...I don’t think that Lionheart was the only traitor in the mix. A part of me can’t help shake the feeling that somehow, some way, the victory of our heroes safeguarding Haven from the White Fang will be short-lived because someone from their fractions is going to be unlawfully slapped as the perpetrator behind Leo’s murder (and why do I feel like it’s going to be Qrow somehow).  

We may have learnt that Leo was the Judas amongst Ozpin’s inner circle. However, what if...the entire Mistral Council is on Salem’s side too? Think about it. A great number of local huntsmen suddenly go missing from the kingdom after leaving for missions designated by the Mistral Council and no one on said council thought this to be suspicious?

Sure you can pin this all on Leonardo cleverly covering his tracks with the aid of Salem’s more craftier associates (like Arthur Watts for example), but still, how come no other council member brought this to the attention of their fellow peers?

Qrow Branwen made this deduction within a few short minutes of making this discovery yet the Mistral Council has been sitting on this news for, what, months? Documented huntsmen on assigned missions within and outside of the Kingdom citadel never return and nothing was done about it? Nor was any word made of it to the local public.

I’m going to call it now. I think Lionheart wasn’t the only member of the Mistral Council working with Salem. I would even go so far as to say that I think the entire Mistral Council has aligned with Salem and now that Lionheart has been disposed of, the Wicked Witch will be leaning on her remaining puppets to finish the job the Faunus Headmaster failed to finish.

Not sure if this will be the case but...it is a good way to finally introduce a Kingdom Council. We’ve been hearing about these guys for volumes now. It’s about time we meet them. Plus it’s a good way to set up that part of the Atlas Arc since Ironwood has been noted to have two seats on the Atlas Council.

We can’t meet the Atlas Council without being introduced to the Mistral Council first.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Qrow tries to elicit the support of the Mistral Council in getting the group safely to Atlas. Though it was used mainly as a ploy to lure the hero team into a trap, Leo did mention getting the Council to help our heroes with transport which means it is a possibility in the canon. And since it was brought up, we could be meeting the members of the Mistral Council for V6.

But as I said, I don’t think it’ll be a great introduction because while the heroes can garner assistance from the Council, I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the plot for V6 is about the Mistral Council voting to not help the heroes to Atlas because Qrow was somehow framed for Leonardo’s death. So the gang is forced to lay low. Because I believe Leo was the one who provided the group with housing in Mistral so if he’s gone, the Council would probably have them booted from of the citadel with no other place to take up shelter. Except... for outside of Mistral; like on the Pine Family Farm (so we can finally meet Auntie Pine and get some Oscar back-story). From there, they work with Blake’s parents and the Brotherhood of Faunus to clear bird dad’s name as he is trialled by the Mistral Council for crimes against the Kingdom. If Qrow is framed for Leo’s death with even the Attack on Haven Academy being pinned on him, I can definitely see the Belladonna’s proving helpful in that case by providing intel that it was Adam Taurus and the White Fang who staged the attack. Do you know what would be an interesting twist?

If the entire time the gang has been staying in Mistral, preparing for the upcoming Battle of Haven, Leonardo has been feeding the Mistral Council lies about our heroes, particularly Qrow Branwen.

For Leonardo to commit such heinous crimes under the Council’s nose must mean that he had an almost iron grip on the affairs of the Mistral Council.

I’m not sure how much authority the Huntsman Academy Headmasters hold in regards to the other governing seats in a council but it must be a pretty powerful position if Leo was able to get away with so much while his fellow council members remained oblivious to all it. Oblivious unless they were in on it from the get-go.

The Witchdoctor

And...do you know what would be an even greater twist?

If Dr. Arthur Watts makes his debut as a double agent to infiltrate our hero ranks in the same manner as Cinder, Mercury and Emerald back in V2.

With the exception of Hazel and Tyrian, the group has yet to meet Watts and know of his allegiance to Salem. I know Watts has been described as an Atlesian doctor and engineer. But perhaps Watts is a man of many talents. Apparently he’s Salem’s ambassador since he was sent to rendezvous with Leonardo as well as accompany Cinder to talk with Raven.

So...what if...Watts also has like a law certification under his belt and shows up to represent Qrow in his Trial with the Mistral Council? Then when it’s all done and won, Watts offers to ‘speak further with the Council on Qrow’s behalf’ and organize for them to drop the group off at Atlas with him accompanying them to be their escort?

I know this is all just mostly theory but...imagine how cool this would be if it became canon. I like this idea because if made canon, if could give fans a chance to get to know Watts. Between V4 and V5, his character hasn’t been relevant however the intrigue his disposition brings feeds my curiosity. We all know he’s going to be main WTCH member to forefront the Atlas Arc. So introducing him as an allied double agent for V6 would be a clever way to get to know him and the kind of cunning mastermind he is prior to the arc. Sure, the whole villain playing good guys to fool the heroes has been done before in the previous arcs. However unlike Cinder and her group who were almost glaringly evil, Watts appears rather charismatic.

Among Salem’s ranks, Watts is the least intimidating and the least likely to pose any threat, or so he appears. Watts’ strength seems to stem from his intelligence and the use of his cunning intellect to gain what he wants. This is why I want to see him play the double agent role.

Because as I said, unlike Cinder and her croons who were so obviously nefarious (hence why RWBY Chibi uses it as a gag), Watts appears harmless.

All the more reason why it’d be more entertaining to watch him charm the pants off of everyone before the eventual reveal of his dastardly side.   

But that’s just my opinion.

So in conclusion....

If there is indeed going to be a second Great War of Remnant, I can see Jaune being one of the major players in deciding this outcome of this new war. Right now, the focus of the main RWBY storyline is directed towards discovering the Relics and their respective Maidens and obtaining them before Salem and her forces get their hands on them. I believe this will be main theme going forward with the storyline.

However once the Relics have been gathered, that’s when the main Great War II storyline will start to take the forefront. Or perhaps more obvious nods to the Great War II arc will be sprinkled throughout the upcoming seasons but will more or less come to full fruition when the group return to Vale. At the end of it all, Vale will be the final battleground.

It was the incident at the Vytal Festival held in Vale that first stirred the populace and ignited the first flares of an impending war. So it would make sense if it all comes to fruition using Vale as the main setting of the conflict. Whether it’s a war against Salem and her Forces of Evil vs. our heroes and their allied forces and/or...a war between Kingdoms.

Either way, it will all culminate in warfare and an epic final battle between the fractions of peace and discord that will decide the future of Remnant for another generation; fate resting on the lingering question of whether or not history will repeat itself or will a new era of chaos and ruin be brought forth in the new world.

Then again, this is all just me jibber jabbering a bunch of assumptions here as always. Only the CRWBY writers know what the final endgame will be.

However one thing’s for certain, Jaune Arc definitely has a part to play in it all. He’s not the same socially awkward love struck goofball comic relief he was originally introduced as. In the span of five seasons, he’s grown to be a very promising warrior and leader with more growth in his path.

Whether he becomes the wielder of ancient power that helped decide Remnant’s fate years ago; following the footsteps of its predecessor to ultimately become a king for the new world is, as I’ll repeat once more, mere fan speculation. Like the very monumental heroes who inspired his character and design, I think Jaune Arc will become a historical figure in Remnant’s history. But we’ll only know if that is true in time. For now, I’ll just stick to my theories.

  ♦ More RWBY Musings by Squiggles

~LittleMissSquiggles (2018)

MPs rebuke police for ‘systemic failure’ to improve record on race

Failings have led to ‘unjustified inequalities’, says landmark report that finds little progress in 22 years since Macpherson Police and governments have done too little to stamp out racial injustice in the ranks, with the failings being systemic and leading to “unjustified inequalities”, a report by an all-party committee of MPs has found. The report by the home affairs committee was heavily critical of the progress made in the 22 years since the Macpherson report into why the white killers of Stephen Lawrence were allowed to go free, which blamed “institutional racism” The report castigates the police for failing to reform themselves, but also successive governments of both main parties for failing to take racial justice seriously enough. It condemns “deep-rooted and persistent racial disparities” and finds guidelines and recommendations ignored over the past two decades, or not followed through. Amid this, racial disparities affecting black and minority ethnic (BAME) people, especially black Britons, remain and cannot be explained or justified, the report says. Police leaders responded by accepting the report, saying the slow pace of reform was of “deep regret” and promising real change. The report describes as “unjustified inequalities” the fact that black people remain nine times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched in England and Wales, with most found to be innocent. Black people are more likely to be stopped for drugs but are less likely to use them, the report says. On Tuesday the prime minister described stop and search as “loving”, as he launched a new crime strategy derided by some as being a collection of gimmicks including government approval to make stops without suspicion easier. The report found the recruitment of ethnic minority officers was too slow and it is “inexcusable” that forces would take decades to be representative of the areas they police. Currently 7% of officers are from ethnic minorities compared with 14% of the population, with demographic predictions for the Guardian projecting that the race gap will grow even bigger. Retention of BAME officers who have joined is also a problem and they are twice as likely to be dismissed as their white counterparts. In a highly unusual move, the committee described as “wrong” a big expansion by the Met in its use of stop and search in London during the first months of lockdown in 2020. That saw the equivalent of one in four of all black males aged between 15 and 24 searched, and found to be doing nothing wrong. The report says: “It should never have been possible for the equivalent of one in four black males between the ages of 15 and 24 in London who were not committing a crime to be stopped and searched during a three-month period. “This finding undermines arguments that stop and search was being used judiciously during this time.” The report notes: “Those we heard from in London expressed strong sentiments of anger and frustration towards the police, particularly about the way in which they felt police officers did not treat them fairly or with respect, and also expressed the lack of confidence they had that the police would keep them safe.” One rationale offered for the racial disparity in stop and search figures is the challenge of tackling knife crime. The committee rejected this argument: “We recognise the importance of the police being able to take action against knife crime, and their concern that victims and perpetrators of knife crime are disproportionately black, but we also note that this does not explain the fact that there are significant racial disparities in stop and searches in every force in the country, with some of the highest levels of disproportionality in areas with very low levels of knife crime.” Neville Lawrence, father of Stephen, said: “I am very concerned that black people are continuing to be disproportionately subject to police powers such as stop and search, a situation that is worsening. It is also concerning that black people remain disproportionately the victims of violent crime. Lawrence backed the committee’s calls for a new steering group to oversee changes: “Given these failings, increased oversight is clearly needed and I am pleased the committee has recognised this.” The report calls for the appointment of a race tsar for policing; for the home secretary to take a greater lead in steering reform; and for police forces to look like the communities they serve by 2030. They were first set that target in 1999, given a decade, and missed it. The report adopts as a key finding an admission made in a Guardian interview by Martin Hewitt, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, that race undermines policing’s legitimacy and effectiveness. It also says confidence in the police is lower among some BAME communities than among white people, and that the gap is growing. Hewitt welcomed the report: “ thorough report does justice to the significant impact that Sir William Macpherson has had on society since 1999. Since then, policing has changed, but as this report makes clear, not far or fast enough to secure the confidence of all communities and especially black people,” he said. “This is of deep regret for policing and of course those who knew Stephen. Putting that right is an operational imperative because the legitimacy and effectiveness of UK policing is built on relationships between the police and the public.” The Macpherson report said that community confidence in policing should be a priority, but the committee found it was not “a policing priority or as a ministerial priority today”. The committee praises some forces for progress made since the Macpherson report in 1999, but says it has been patchy and too little. In a key passage, setting out the challenges policing needs to meet, the report says: “Policing today is very different from 22 years ago and there have been important and welcome improvements … We have also found persistent, deep-rooted and unjustified racial disparities in key areas. “The failure to make sufficient progress on BAME recruitment, retention and progression, troubling race disparities in the police misconduct system, unjustified inequalities in the use of key police powers such as stop and search and a worrying decline in confidence and trust in the police among some BAME communities all point to structural problems that go beyond individual bias. “There has been a systematic failure on the part of the police service and government, over many years, to take race inequality in policing seriously enough. “The Macpherson report’s objective at the end of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry to ‘eliminate racist prejudice and disadvantage and demonstrate fairness in all aspects of policing’ has not been met.” The committee makes no finding on institutional racism, which police deny, or the effectiveness in tackling crime of stop and search, instead calling for more research. The report is a rebuke to those in policing and government that have tried to underplay or deny the race crisis that has gripped policing. That saw hundreds of thousands take to Britain’s streets in support of Black Lives Matter, triggered by the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in the US in May 2020. Last month in the UK a police officer who kicked a black man, Dalian Atkinson, in the head in Telford was convicted of manslaughter, the first such conviction of an officer in more than 30 years. Andy George, president of the National Black Police Association, said: “The denial of institutional racism has prevented initiatives to bring about racial equality in policing. Not only are we failing to recruit enough officers from ethnic backgrounds, we are falling to retain them. “This highlights the need to change the internal culture of policing.” The report says it is “deeply concerned” that some victims of race hate crime say they have been treated by the police as suspects rather than victims, and warns that the police are failing to tackle racist hate crime on the internet. Since George Floyd’s murder, police leaders have promised reform but little has been announced, and those with knowledge of draft plans tell the Guardian they are little different from what has gone before. Yvette Cooper, chair of the home affairs select committee, said: “Without clear action to tackle race inequality we fear that, in 10 years’ time, future committees will be hearing the very same arguments that have been rehearsed already for over 20 years. That cannot be allowed to happen.” Achievement was possible, the report found: “The recent progress by forces in Greater Manchester and Nottinghamshire has shown that it is possible rapidly to increase the proportion of new BME recruits into line with the proportion of BME residents in the local population.” The Met said the criticism of its increased stop and search in 2020 at the start of lockdown was because “officers were redirected in their duties, as overall crime levels reduced, and saw many more of them on the streets undertaking proactive policing in violence hotspots and on general patrol duties. “This led to an increase in the number of stop and searches carried out but was not the result of any direction to officers to increase stop and search.” In a statement, the policing minister, Kit Malthouse, did not address key points in the report such as the need for government to do more. He said: ”We know there is much more to do – that is why attracting more officers from a wide range of ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds is a core ambition of our drive to recruit an extra 20,000 officers. “Stop and search along with other preventative activity set out in the Beating Crime Plan is also vital to ensuring we create safer streets and neighbourhoods.” Read the full article

Headcanon: the Simm!Master is Neurodivergent (and probably on the Autism Spec)

(click on the word “neurodivergent” for a succinct explanation of the neurodiversity paradigm) Key: ND = neurodivergent.  

Initial disclaimer: Though I identify as neurotypical, I am also chronically physically disabled, so it is important to me to demolish ableist ideology. So. In NO WAY does the ND (neurodivergent) state of this character justify, explain or cause anything he does that is considered “evil.”  IN. NO. WAY. On the contrary, people who identify as ND are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent crimes. 

This headcanon has developed slowly over the entirety of my portrayal of this muse (so it’s taken two years to come to this conclusion).  It’s important to note that this idea does not originate with me, but is pretty precious to a number of ND Doctor Who fans ( @natalunasans , you asked me to tag you <3).  Initially, fellow Master muses  presented this idea to me, and I rejected it largely out fo fear of seeming to imply ideas counter to the above disclaimer.  I have since come to realize that it is possible to portray the Simm Master in such a way that separates his mental illnesses out from his moral reprehensibility.  

This is of course complicated multiple times by the fact that the Master likely also has more than one “Personality Disorder” (a veritable worm-can of issues that psychologists still debate in praxis), as well as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 

Why do I think that the Simm Master is ND? For the following reasons drawn from canonical context: 

--Low empathy, NOT to be confused with low compassion (though he has that too, but that’s a learned and morally based character flaw).  People who are ND tend to have difficulty relating to the affect (emotional state) of others in parallel situations, beyond an intellectual recognition of said emotions.  They experience confusion and challenges in this regard.   --Difficulty with innately grasping social cues and expectations.  The Master is an expert politician, capable of reading and manipulating others to his will, it’s true.  But anyone who identifies as ND, if they are also intelligent and perceptive, can learn these skills, and mimic them in social scenarios the acceptable behavioral formulas of which they have memorized.  Not only does the Master love to dress up in elaborate disguises to thwart his adversaries, evincing a love of artifice in general (see the entire Harold Saxon persona, as well as Mr. Razor), he Master  also shows that, when he is not trying to rehearse the “script,” he is extraordinarily intrusive, aggressive, and blunt, and not always for the sake of being intentionally cruel.   --Hyper-fixation and obsession.  Not an inherently bad thing at all. But the Master’s ability to, say, spend ten years fooling one companion of the Doctor into fulfilling his revenge scheme; or comprehensively grasp the entire complex socio-political structure of earth so well that he can win an election as a major world leader; or build an entire nuclear arsenal as well as a floating fortress city in under  two years; and so on and so forth, not to mention have a literal addiction to a childhood best friend turned rival, without the capacity to tunnel-vision.  

--The “Savant” trope.  While it’s a HUGELY over-used and HUGELY exaggerated quasi-myth, there is allegedly a group of people who are ND, often identified as people with Asperger Syndrome, who are amazingly gifted in narrow academic, scientific, or artistic fields.  I’m on the fence about this one because the Master is gifted across the board, and this could easily be a matter of having an unfathomably high IQ (Intelligence Quotient), which exists in an entirely discrete dimension from ND traits.  

--So-called “infodumping.”  He does it.  Not always, but he loves to describe, in intricate detail, his plans and plots, and is that always just a case of bragging? Maybe, maybe not.   --Difficulty grasping personal boundaries.  This one is trickier, and may have to do with a so-called “Personality Disorder,” or otherwise an Attachment Disorder, more than being ND.  But fixation on the Doctor: need I say more?  

--So-called “naivety”.  Now I’m not a huge fan of the way that the media infantilizes ND people (see Sheldon in “Big Bang Theory”) so this is another one to approach with caution.  But a willingness to suspend disbelief is present in the Master at the oddest times: see his history of watching earth children’s television and believing it’s real, or his belief in the very far-fetched, fantastical “four-part gun” that Martha claimed to use to kill him.  

--Difficulty regulating emotion under duress, or recognizing it in oneself.  The Master can manipulate the emotions of others easily, but he seems to have tremendous difficulty recognizing his own fluctuations. He has self-soothing techniques that are evident in canon, such as that odd tic of twisting his head in a circle on his neck, when he is overly excited OR overly upset, but these seem to be unconscious mechanisms.  And more often than not it leads to emotional explosions on his part.  

--Hyper-stimulation (due to the “Drums”) leading to emotional agitation and exhaustion.  This is actually the biggest one imho.  The Master is so often keyed up, manic, aggressive, and angry because  these are very common emotional side effects of ND hyperstimulation, which basically means that the five senses are sending the brain an excess of information and it just shuts down, overwhelmed.  A deafening four-beat rhythm that started suddenly in childhood, that no one else can hear, that isolates you, that never leaves you alone, and that has mnemonic triggers to a moment in your youth when you felt like an inconsequential failure? Pretty sure that’d do the trick. 

Thoughts, reactions, tag-ons welcome!!!! 

"The anti-discrimination discrimination argument”

First of all I want to get a few things out of the way..I’m not an idiot... Ok now here’s the deal...

“Black people are disproportionately the targets of police brutality and systemic racism”

Let's get one thing straight. This isn't a "hard question" People who say that are giving credibility to the deceit and half truth of it. It's a derailer statement followed by a false conclusion portrayed as fact. The falsely portrayed fact being that our country is full of systemic racism and racist police who, according to the Democrat party, make it dangerous for any black person to leave their house.

A lot of black lives matter tools will throw around the terms "disproportionate black death's by police" followed by "systemic racism" and despite the fact that you know that the picture of systemic racism is greatly over-exaggerated and that the "why" of disporportionate black deaths is a complex answer which you could spend hours on, debating all of the reasons behind that being true...and all the reasons why it doesn't make black people the only ones deserving justice.

 In our country EVERY life matters, not just black people who commit a disproportionately larger amount of violent crimes and cop killings. Every unjust death, unfair target and victim of excessive force matters...(of which I am one too, luckily, i lived to tell the tale!)..lol Just kidding! not the unjust death just the excessive force part...(hey just smack me in the head I am kind of a smartass sometimes!)

I blame the disproportionate amount of blacks killed by police on 2 things.1- The disproportionate amount of violent crimes perpetrated by the African American community and 2- on a more defiant attitude towards police than any other demographic, which has been on full display in the last few months. In my own personal experience I have been a victim of mostly black perpetrated crimes. I have never bullied or attacked or ratted out a black person in my entire life and I never will... Second is the attitude bullying defiant belligerent..a lack of respect in general..confrontational and hostile..pack.. gang mentality... which is essentially what black lives matter is..one big black power gang. They promote an attitude of blaming police and white supremacy for systemic racism, life destroying discrimination and for racistly targeting them for more police brutality than others all the while ACTUALLY ruining the lives of anyone who would dare speak out against their movement by making statements like "All Lives Matter". Well despite being a disproportionately small percentage of the population blacks also just happen to commit a disproportionately large share of cop killings..They commit disproportionately larger amounts of all violent crimes for their population than any other race. This coupled with a fostered greater cultural attitude of defiance and hostility towards the police lead to more police brutality incidents and murders. The truth of the matter is that attitude of non compliance and defiance of the police rooted in a greater failure to show any respect to police escalates sitautions like gasoline thrown on a fire when you combine it with an equally flawed police authoritarian "obey me" attitude. Black lives matter tells people who are defiant towards police that they are right to be..What society essentially did is act as an enabler to all black people who are hostile towards police and breed an entire generation of and recruit many many more to cophaters and white people haters..The attitudes towards police will certainly persist through any changes in police protocol to prevent brutality. So by making it about racism instead of about police brutality..we have taken the demographic who are the biggest part of the problem attitude wise and enabled them to be even more defiant and hostile..it won't end with good legislation..like the coronavirus this may be the new hellish normal in our country.This is why it makes me angry when people go around crying "disproportionate deaths...systemic racism..racist police" It creates an entitled beligerence that won't soon cease to color future interactions between law enforcement and african americans. By failing to define the problem as having two parties to blame. You have enabled the bad acting of one while expecting the other to exercise even more restraint and be the sole one held responsible by society. This ironically is a lot like another large group that experience disproportionate amounts of death among the white population. Mental health diagnosed people. The credible abuser blames the mental health diagnosed person, has them committed without a fair trial..forces them to be on drugs and then continues their abusive treatment of the mental health patient which has essentially been enabled by the psychiatric community. There are two sides to every story and a wise man knows that where there is a problem often both parties share the blame and both parties need to change to properly resovle the situation. That is what needs to happen with police and african american people. Both sides need to make changes.

Shockingly  HALF of police shootings involve people with mental illness! The difference in risk comparing mentally ill white to other whites is greater than the difference in risk between whites nad blacks! Many times wellness checks are called on these people and are not handled properly by police who only escalate the situation. There needs to be changes in protocol and involvement of actual mental health advocates on the scene. Police not only don't know how to handle people like this. They almost always escalate the situation. Remember this slogan...We always have more time to save a life...How many lives would be saved by slowing crisis situations down? Incorporating mental health people and a mental health advocate for the person as a first line communication and police only as a back up in dangerous scenarios.

https://psychcentral.com/blog/half-of-police-shootings-involve-people-with-mental-illness/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/black-police-officers-likely-kill-black-people/

We have data on a total of 2,699 fatal police killings for the years 2013 to 2015. This is 1,333 more killings by police than is provided by the FBI data on justifiable police homicides. When either the violent crime rate or the demographics of a city are accounted for, we find that white police officers are not significantly more likely to kill a black suspect. For the estimates where we know the race of the officer who killed the suspect, the ratio of the rate that blacks are killed by black versus white officers is large — ranging from 3 to 5 times larger. However, because the media may under report the officer’s race when black officers are involved, other results that account for the fact that a disproportionate number of the unknown race officers may be more reliable.

Bottom line with this is..how can you claim systemic racism by police when black police kill black people as often or more often than white people?!!! Another fun fact...more police officer are killed by blacks than black people are killed by police...Of course you aren't going to see a worldwide outrage over their death. After all they're only police officers who risk their lives to keep the country safe. In all likelihood these officers who are killed are not the type of bad actor police BLM movement is making the general case against (and neither are 90% of the officers involved in the high profile cases in the media today). The truth is that in cases like Jacob Blake the victim was not being profiled or targeted racistly and it was the black girlfriend allegedly being sexually assaulted who called the police after which the police treated Blake no different than a white man. The excessive amount of times he shot him was yes extremely out of line and not even 1% motivated by the cop being “racist” The cop who choked George Floyd did not do it because he had racist anger at Floyd! He was just a bad cop. Another common denominator in all these incidents is the suspect trying to taze, shoot or possibly stab the police.

The sad fact is that they are propogating an untrue narrative about these incidents and politicizing these poor people's deaths. I mean seriously! Were the officers that killed George Floyd flashing clan signs? Did the officer have any history at all of white supremacist ties? How is George Robinson's death any less important than George Floyd's? I'll tell you how..he doesnt support their sick politicizing of tragedy. The party that supports their reverse racism movement not too ironically just had a nomination event full of the same politicizing tragedy tactics.

https://thegrio.com/2020/08/16/mississippi-police-officers-charged-for-murder/