#one informed by insidious biases that live in all of us because we live in a society etc | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

volitioncheck · 8 months

Text

does near every single post-canon DE fic out there need to be tagged ‘Sober Harry Du Bois’? i’m getting so tired of it.

do i expect every single piece of fan content to have to fully delve into the often-depressing always-complex topic of addiction? not really. sometimes you just want to write/read a silly fluffy romance one-shot, whatever. i get it. but i think my issue is specifically with the fact that for nearly every sillyfluffy au out there, there almost must be a ‘sober harry du bois’ tag. and it does feel very slapped-on more often than not.

i think to me it is an unconscious statement that nothing *good* can ever happen to harry du bois until he is completely and permanently sober. before solving the next big case, he has to be sober. before quitting the force, he has to be sober. before falling in love with kim, he has to be sober. before accomplishing anything, starting any sort of recovery, making any life improvement, he must first be sober.

sobriety as a goal, as a journey, and honestly as a concept in of itself is not as cut and dry as so many people think it is. and i think it would serve a lot of people well if they did some introspection on the implications of how nearly every single post-canon fic that isn’t dealing directly with harry’s addiction have him as completely sober instead.

if the plot of the fic isn’t going to touch directly on harry’s substance use (and again, i’m not demanding that every single fic should), why does that mean that sober!harry must be the default?

i think i am just tired of reading a casefic, a smutty one-shot, a fantasy au, whatever, where it almost seems that before getting on with the plot, the author feels obligated to first assure us that the harry we’re reading about is a Sober Harry. it’s established with a couple lines in the exposition, probably about his improved appearance, a tag up top, and then never brought up again; a checkmarked box. like the societal image of An Addict has completely prevented people from being able to imagine a person just, continuing to live life, while still struggling with addiction.

life happens, with all of its backslides and achievements, mundanity and changes, to people with drug addictions just as much as people who don’t. is a post-canon harry who isn’t sober not worth writing about?

i think so. i think the game we all played thinks so too. in fact i think that sentiment is woven into the game’s very core. i just wish i saw that reflected in our fan content more.

#i really hope my point is understandable in that it isn’t that i think that stories where harry *does* become sober aren’t also valuable.#or that i want every post-canon harry to *not* be sober.#but rather questioning why there seems to be a subconcious necessity for harry to be sober to have kind things happen to him.#disco elysium #harry du bois #also obligatory because i am putting this in the main tag:#this isn’t a callout or vague on any one person/creator/group of people in particular #it’s more of a prompt to discussion on a very broad trend #one informed by insidious biases that live in all of us because we live in a society etc #that none of us are immune to but all of us have a responsibility to acknowledge #if there is goal to this post it’s to provoke introspection. not individual attacks #anyways i love quietly consuming fan content until something annoys me enough to make my own post about it #i do wish i Participated in fan communities more tbh especially this one i’m just shy lol #most of the time.#me talking

473 notes · View notes

zscribez · 6 months

Text

If the media so preempt the communication universe, then how can we evaluate them? And who is to say whether our criticisms are to be trusted? In attempting to expose the distortions and biases of the press, do we not unavoidably introduce biases of our own? And if objectivity is unattainable, are we not then left in the grip of a subjectivism in which one person's impressions are about as reliable (or unreliable) as another's? To be sure, there is always the danger that a dissenting viewpoint of the kind presented in this book will introduce distortions of its own. The reader should watch for these. But this new "danger" is probably not as great as the one posed by the press itself, because readers approach the dissenting viewpoint after having been conditioned throughout their lives to the sentiments and images of the dominant society. The heterodox arguments can more easily be recognized as such and are open to conscious challenge. Far more insidious are the notions and opinions that so fit into the dominant political culture's field of established images that they appear not as arguments and biased manipulations but as "the nature of things."

When exposed to a view that challenges the prevailing message, the reader is not then simply burdened with additional distortions. A dissident view provides us with an occasion to test the prevailing beliefs, to contrast and compare and open ourselves to information and questions that the mainstream media and the dominant belief system in general have ignored or suppressed. Through this clash of viewpoints we have a better chance of moving toward a closer approximation of the truth.

In addition, we have the test of experience itself. Common sense and everyday life oblige us to make judgments and act as if some images and information are closer to the truth than others. Misrepresentations can be eliminated by a process of feedback, as when subsequent events fail to fulfill the original images. For instance, after decades of mass media alarms about Red Menace threats that subsequently never materialized, we can raise some critical questions about the objectivity and reliability of the press regarding the issue of anticommunism and the cold war.

There is also the internal evidence found in the press itself. We can detect inconsistencies in the press by drawing from other reports in the same mainstream press. We can note how information that supports the official view is given top play while developments that seem not to fit are relegated to the back pages. Also, like any liar the press is filled with contradictions. Seldom holding itself accountable for what it says, it can blithely produce information and opinions that conflict with previously held ones, without a word of explanation for the shift. We can also learn to question what the establishment press tells us by noting the absence of supporting evidence, the failure to amplify and explain. We can ask: Why are the assertions that appear again and again in the news not measured against observable actualities? We can thereby become more aware when and how the news media are inviting us to believe something without establishing any reason for the belief.

[...]

Some readers will complain of this book's "one-sidedness." But if it is true that "we need to hear all sides and not just one," then all the more reason why the criticisms and information usually suppressed or downplayed by the American press deserve the attention accorded them in the pages to follow. In any case, it can be observed that people who never complain about the one-sidedness of their mainstream political education are the first to complain of the one-sidedness of any challenge to it. Far from seeking a diversity of views, they defend themselves from the first exposure to such diversity, preferring to leave their conventional political opinions unchallenged.

michael parenti - inventing reality: the politics of the mass media

#op #book excerpts

0 notes

smokeybrand · 2 years

Text

Makima

No one talks about how domination and control are so intrinsic to European Christianity. Like, when you think about how that sh*t proliferated all over the world, it's always accompanied by the subjugation of some native peoples. Sh*t goes hand-in-hand with racists imperialism. Mexicans got to deal will Spanish Conquistadors and Missionaries, telling them their dirty brown god was wrong while these foreign invaders raped their children. Africans were enslaved, the Bible babble thrown our way as a means to keep us pacified with the promise of eternal happiness after we live a life of bondage. Native Americans had their lands taken (among many, many, other atrocities which includes an proper genocide) because of Manifest Destiny, which literally means "Because my god said so." The worst atrocities committed by humans in recent history, have all stemmed from the European take on Jesus and pals. Or, more accurately, how this take is perverted to suit the needs of Anglos. This sh*t goes all the way back to the Council of Nicea where the many books and takes of the Gospel, were distilled into one tome, chosen by a select, elite, learned few, as a means to insidiously control the ignorant masses. Like, actually illiterate masses. Motherf*ckers couldn't read but priests and scribes could, the very people installed by the church to "spread the Word." It just so happens it was the "Word" they chose to speak, not necessarily the Word which had been spoken, if you subscribe to that stuff. Every Bible in circulation today, i mean all of them available to the public, are revisions and distillations of what was chosen at this council; Meaning a bunch of dudes with prejudice, ideals, motivations, biases, and stakes, put together an "infallible holy scripture" that was in their best interests, that was designed to paint their picture, to be taught to a bunch of people who sh*t where they ate. The Bible as you know it is a tool of subjugation, as it was designed to be, and this is the good book you choose to inform every aspect of your life? Word? Domination and Control.

0 notes

smokeybrandcompositions · 2 years

Text

Makima

0 notes

vasiktomis · 3 years

Text

The Father’s Grooming of Faith Seed

That’s right, it’s an analysis in defence of (the late current) Faith, mostly in her younger years. Please scroll past if you’re not interested in this take. Please also keep in mind that these are personal opinions that I’m pulling based on game backstory and character portrayal, but I’m not without my biases. I wholly support members of the fandom who enjoy Faith being empowered in her evil, but it’s just not for me. I’m writing from the perspective of a former homeless youth, and while most of my thoughts are a personal interpretation of gameplay and conjecture from lazy writing limited information, I believe that I do have some insight into what Rachel may have gone through in terms of her attraction to Joseph and her recruitment into the Project at Eden’s Gate. Warnings under the cut: Mentions of child grooming, drug use and misuse, indoctrination, abuse, religious trauma. It’s Far Cry.

Yes, she’s flawed and she’s an absolute shite of a person. She’s a cultist. She’s a liar. She’s just as forceful and twisted in her indoctrination as Jacob and John are. Her methods are awful, and she’s complicit when it comes to Joseph’s orders and his corruption. No Seed sibling is anything short of a monster, and Faith is no exception.

At the end of the day, though, she WAS a kid when she was recruited by the cult. Before Joseph found Jacob, he’d already committed atrocities. Before he found John, the lawyer was a corrupt executive and a sadist. Rachel was a rough-sleeping teenager with one friend. She absolutely grew into the monster that she would become in her 20′s and there’s no excuse for her actions as an adult, but just as Jacob and John’s traumas were used against them in fostering their dependence on Joseph, so was hers. What makes Joseph’s influence over his adopted sister so much more insidious is that he couldn’t rely on family sentiment in recruiting her initially. Instead, he found a lost child and manipulated her naivety and her desperation for acceptance.

Rachel was a minor who was groomed by a strange man in his 30′s, and no resident adult stepped in to prevent this from happening.

I realise there are many fans who disagree with the point I’m making here about the vulnerability of Rachel’s youth, but your brain has not even developed fully by 25, let alone 17. She was a minor, and no matter the claims that she was happy to go along with the cult from the start, I believe her when she says that she was drugged by Joseph and forced to take on her role as Faith Seed.

The earliest information we have on Faith is tidbits from her teenage years. In-game dialogue from locals like Tracey and Virgil.

Disregarding the argument over whether she is or isn’t Rachel Jessop, Faith’s overall sentiment remains the same: She was a child without a community of adult role models. She and Tracey were drawn to commune-style living in their teen years before the Seed brothers arrived in Hope County. They had both turned to drugs, and were ostracised by the locals. Rachel grew up in absence of a safe space. She had little guidance, and those she could depend on and confide in were, well...pretty much just Tracey. Neither had healthy guardians to steer them in the right direction. They were on their own, and despite being of an age where (in an optimistic setting) their developmental needs should have been met by responsible adults, they were instead brought up without aid, and without acceptance.

Tracey mentions Rachel’s people-pleasing habits from way back in their childhood, even in the days where they hadn’t started living with the Project. She avoided conflict and wanted to be liked. She didn’t understand that acting as if everything was fine didn’t necessarily make it so. I applaud Tracey’s scepticism of Joseph, and her ability to see through what was happening early on when the two of them first joined the Project, but I don’t blame Faith for her blindness to it. She’s not even old enough to graduate high-school at this point. She’s been ostracised from an early age. She’s been swept under the rug. She’s got suicidal ideation and no one in this world loves her. What wisdom is she supposed to have gained? Tracey might be strong enough to carry on with the ‘us against the world’ mantra, but Rachel doesn’t want conflict. She wants a community to take part in, and to be understood and accepted. One day, the enigmatic leader of their church shows up. Everyone in the Project worships him. His importance is in their very scripture. He’s their Prophet. He, of all people, takes a liking to Rachel. It’s easy to point the finger and judge her naivety, but when you’re a displaced kid and a cool adult takes a shining to you, it’s very fucking difficult to resist keeping away from them. It’s very fucking easy to get star-struck by what appears to be a healthy role model, even if your friend knows better than to buy into it.

I grew up with a lot of friends who dated college guys when we were in high-school, and the argument was pretty similar. Most of us were able to see how insidious it was from the outside, but when you’re the minor in that scenario, it’s not the adult whose attention and affection and praise of you is wrong; it’s the other kids. They don’t understand. They’re jealous. You’re special. You’re mature beyond your years. Smarter than them. That’s why you’re hanging around adults and they aren’t. Reading Rachel’s letters to Tracey at the church, in which she implies Tracey’s envy over her spending more time with the cult than with her, I felt that Rachel’s lens had by this point been entirely clouded by Joseph’s influence. She cared about her friend and wanted to keep her by her side, but she’s entirely unable to compromise the feeling of acceptance that she’s found with Joseph. He’s all-knowing and all-loving. He understands and forgives. Everyone loves him, and because he puts Rachel on a pedestal, they love her too. Tracey disrupts this. Tracey doesn’t fucking get it. Tracey is the poison.

Rachel was Joseph’s best prospect for a new Faith. She was a blank slate and she’d obey him in earnest. She wouldn’t doubt him, because she never knew any better. She was legitimately happier in the Project than she was on the outside, and her honest belief helped to quell arguments of corruption and ulterior motive. She was pretty. She could sing and dance, and once they cleaned her up a little, she’d make for a perfect Siren. Typical of an abuser, Joseph successfully isolated Rachel from her circle. By now, he was likely her only voice of guidance. He and his terrifying older brother who has sworn to protect them no matter the cost, and his charismatic younger brother who gives her pep talks and knows what it feels like to suffer from drug misuse. Joseph helped Jacob bounce back from post-traumatic dissociation. He saved John from self-imposed hell. He could help Rachel, too. I believe that Rachel was invited to take the role of Faith, and instructed to get clean in order to do so. That at some point amongst her attempts to stop using, when she was totally alone and suffering from withdrawal, her invitation wasn’t nearly as loving as it once was. It became an ultimatum. I believe Rachel was given a heavier dose of scopolamine than Joseph claims they gave her. That in her lowest moments, her role model fed her the fear of banishment should she turn back. With the added aid of a powerful drug that massively affects decision-making and short-term memory, Joseph forced Rachel to destroy her identity and assume the role of Faith Seed. Whether or not she recalls this due to being under the influence at the time, I’m not sure, but the Bliss has set her free, and she’s now the Herald who will help recruits take the same leap she did. She’s in Joseph’s inner circle now. She’s trusted enough to be exposed to the ugly side of the Project, and while the view from the top isn’t nearly so wonderful as it once sounded, Faith Seed has no life to return to. She only has Joseph, and he knows it. She’s just as dependent on him now as his brothers are, and if she doesn’t please him, she won’t just lose that sense of acceptance she’s been chasing since she was a teenager. She’s too close to him now to know that the other Faiths didn’t just quit. They were disposed of. Once upon a time, Rachel wanted to die. Now she’s terrified that she just might.

#*screaming* thats my OPINION #far cry 5 #faith seed #joseph seed #jacob seed #john seed #how obvious is it that i want to break joseph's legs #i hope its obvious #religious trauma #abuse #indoctrination #drugs #drug use #drug misuse #child grooming #long post

77 notes · View notes

harostar · 3 years

Note

I feel like bad AOT takes comes from the fact that... many leftists want to avoid accidentally stumbling into propaganda. Much as the Right-Winger co-opted the terms, WE took the red pill. WE learned the insidious truths behind how cop shows are written, how the military is written in movies. All to boister an image they can use to justify what they do behind the scenes or out in public. With AOT, anything about the military must condemn it with little ambiguity. (cont.)

(cont.) We're tired of giving The Powers That Be any benefit of the doubt. Reading the exposes about them, what are they if not the Saturday Morning Cartoon villains we grew up on? This is what leads to people taking others word for it when they describe AOT as "fascist propaganda." I would be willing to buy that if Hange Zoe didn't outright declare, "Genocide is wrong," without any real contradictions to her assertion.

Complete honesty here, Anon. While I think there are some valid points made in the overall discussion about Fandom and the handling of Nuance, there is something about this Ask that just.....bothers me. I had debated about whether or not to respond, and how I wanted to to do so.

I can’t quite put my finger on what bothers me about it.

But putting that aside, I think Fandom Discourse struggles with Nuance on many levels. And you have varying degrees of critical engagement, from people who do not question or look beyond the surface AT ALL to the people that basically have a Critical Blog that does nothing but look for ways for things to be Bad and Wrong(tm).

Somewhere between those extremes, is the need to balance “Turn my brain off and enjoy things” with recognizing how media can be flawed, whether intentional propaganda (ie: Military and Law Enforcement) or unintentional (ignorance of an issue).

I think the online discourse around the Attack on Titan franchise is especially messy, because the source material itself is messy. I’ve spoken a little before about how choosing to parallel the Holocaust was a huge misstep, and one that is incredibly difficult to balance even when you ARE coming from a Western perspective. Using the historical atrocities and tragedies of other cultures also tends to be a hugely messy thing, because you are inherently filtering it through your own cultural lens and biases.

Japan can be just as bad as Western media in terms of playing with something “foreign and exotic” without really understanding the deeper issues. There are numerous Japanese-produced works that have really unfortunate portrayals of things, because of a lack of familiarity or understanding of the deeper issues and history. Japanese media has long had trouble with racist portrayals of Black characters, not because of any malicious intention but because a lot of their exposure to Black people had been through (intentionally racist) American-produced materials. It’s gotten BETTER, so much better in recent years compared to the past. But it’s still a work in progress, because a lot of the historical context and deeper issues are simply not part of common knowledge for Japanese folks.

Likewise, AoT stumbles into stereotypes involving Jewish people. Because these tend to clash with the messages in the series, I tend to lean towards Isayama simply being unaware of such implications. From what little we know about him as a person and his past mistakes (that he at least publicly seems to have acknowledged as mistakes), he seems very much like a typical 20/30-something Japanese dude that isn’t particularly worldly or informed about Politics on a deeper level.

Over the years, I have definitely observed a tendency for people online to assume others have the same knowledge and understanding as them. But most people are really only going to have a surface/minimal understanding of history and issues, unless it happens to be something of deep personal importance to them.

I’m a 30-something White Girl that has spent most of my life living in the suburbs in the South. For most of my life, there were A LOT of political and social issues I had very little understanding about. I am still learning and unlearning things, on a daily basis. I honestly cringe to think about my past self, and the things I didn’t understand or know about. Hell, I realized recently that an old photo of me taken before Homecoming in 11th grade has some interesting artwork in the background.

There were portraits of General Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson in our family room, growing up. We thought nothing of having them, and definitely weren’t a bunch of racist rednecks. We were a middle-class suburban family with a diverse group of friends. My parents definitely thought of themselves as Allies, and tried to stand up for the right thing whenever possible.

I don’t remember exactly when it was that those portraits came down and got thrown out. Looking back, it’s definitely the kind of thing that makes us cringe because YIKES we didn’t even realize at the time it was bad.

I guess my point with that little personal detail is trying to remind people that most of the time, things are a result of ignorance. America and Japan share an issue of actively not teaching people about social issues, and whitewashing history to conceal all the ugliness. Especially when it comes to another Culture, there’s so much opportunity to stumble into negative stereotypes or implications without understanding what you’re doing.

I am rambling, so I think at this point I’m going to conclude by suggesting everyone go read this fantastic post by @fission-mailure

It nails one major issue of the “AoT is Nazi Propaganda” argument is that the framing is incredibly Eurocentric. Hajime Isayama’s politics and his understanding of issues are informed by the politics of Japan. The above link has some good insights concerning Japanese politics, in particular their homegrown variety of Far-Right groups and talking points.

#snk #aot #oh boy this kinda got rambly #idk yeah #what do I tag this even??

11 notes · View notes

homenum-revelio-hq · 3 years

Photo

Welcome to the Order of the Phoenix, Bailey!

You have been accepted for the role of ROSLALIA CLEARWATER with the facelaim change of Im Jinah! We were so excited to see someone interested in Rosalia. We think she’s such a multi-faceted character and you really brought her in life in your application. We cannot wait to see how her appearance back to the Order will change the dynamics here! Welcome to the roleplay!

Please take a look at the new member checklist and send in your account within 24 hours! Thank you for joining the fight against Voldemort!

OUT OF CHARACTER:

NAME & PRONOUNS: Bailey - she/her

AGE: 26

TIMEZONE: CST

ACTIVITY LEVEL: I work full time so usually I’ll be on in the evenings and weekends. If I had to wager a guess, I’d say I should be able to get on around 3 times a week.

ANYTHING ELSE: triggers - animal abuse/cruelty/torture.

CHARACTER DETAILS:

NAME: Rosalia Clearwater

AGE: 30 - December 12, 1951

GENDER, PRONOUNS, and SEXUALITY: Female | She/Her | Bisexual

BLOOD STATUS: Half-Blood

HOUSE ALUMNI: Gryffindor

ANY CHANGES: Requesting a FC change from Jamie Chung to Im Jinah

CHARACTER BACKGROUND:

(tw: minor self harm)

PERSONALITY:

You know those girls you hear about - the ones that grew up with scrapes on their knees and branches in their hair, with wild smiles and honey sweet laughter? No concept of fear, the kind of girl who embraced everything the world threw at her with her feet planted firmly on the ground. Rosalia was once that girl - always ready to speak up and defend those that need defending, quick to fight and just as quickly settle down into a discussion.

She liked to have an understanding of those around her, how they thought and what drove them. It was maybe a more Ravenclaw trait but she found most confrontations didn’t escalate to the same extent if she heard someone out.

Not that she didn’t have opinions - she knew what she believed in and would do research to help support her ideas. Sometimes she’d get fixated on one idea and hold fast to it, that Gryffindor stubbornness settling into her veins. It would take examples and sources to change her mind at that point, not just an opinion. Of course, when it’s the minority (half-breeds and muggle born) there aren’t always the official resources to back up their experiences - biases run rampant throughout history.

She is a natural born leader and teacher - being the eldest of 4 definitely helped her develop those skills. It showed in her classes too - the ease with which she answered questions and how she would help others around her who were struggling, usually regardless of house. The Slytherin’s usually didn’t ask for help from her but if it happened, her answers were usually a little more clipped and there was a distrust in her eyes that wasn’t present with other houses.

Rosalia could definitely be rash in her decisions, jumping into a fight or conversation without knowing all the details. Most of the trouble she landed in was because she didn’t look before leaping.

She has learned over time to not only listen to what people are saying, but what they are not saying. Gaps in information and missing links usually mean something is fishy and she will never hesitate to prod a little if she feels there’s more to be said.

What do they struggle with?

As a child, she would ask question after question, regardless of how appropriate they were and without any regard for tact. The teachers in her muggle schools tried to train her out of it but it wasn’t until she went to Hogwarts that she truly began to see people from all walks of life and how her questions might affect someone. It was also the first place where her punishments stuck - detention in the muggle world would never compare to scrubbing out cauldrons for hours on end or polishing trophies until her hands were red and raw.

Over time, those relentless questions turned into a love of debate and she would eagerly

argue wixen politics or the rights of certain people or why the colour purple was clearly superior over all other colours. It was fun and it always felt like a contest and she did have a love of winning.

Her biggest struggle came around after she was hit by the curse. It wasn’t like breaking a bone, where the pain was immediate and overwhelming and recovery was slow going but the healing was obvious. No, this curse was more insidious - a dark mark forming on her bicep and over time spreading down to her fingers until her veins were dark and her fingertips black.

Slowly losing the mobility of her wand arm was debilitating - the magic thrummed in her veins but she wasn’t able to cast it, to release it to the world. And then one day, she woke up and couldn’t feel anything where the darkness was - no fizzy thrum of magic, no pinpricks of her sewing needles, not even the sensation as she dragged her sharpest knife along her forearm.

After fleeing Britain and the war, it took a very long time for Rosalia to be able to sleep through the night without dreaming of the night that sent her life into a tailspin. Even now, after all the work she put into her rehabilitation, a big part of her still doesn’t believe she will be able to be of use to the Order. What good is a wix with one good arm and unresolved trauma to an organization that is trying to save the wixen world?

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF FAMILY:

Growing up, she never knew her father. Her mother, Vanessa Clearwater, rarely talked about him other than to say that he was a muggle and they were better off without him. It was the same with the rest of her sisters - all of them had a different father, always muggle, and never present. Any time they would ask after any of their absent fathers, Vanessa would snap and send them off to do chores until they were exhausted.

It was a strict upbringing but not unpleasant by any stretch of the imagination. Vanessa instilled in each of them a sense of worth and confidence that would be hard to shake. Magic was intermittent among the girls: Rosalia was magical from the age of three, Violette didn’t manifest anything until her 8th birthday, Alysum was the late bloomer of all of them - her letter came as a surprise and her first year was a struggle, but she did manage to manifest magic. Her magic was always the weakest. And Poppy never showed any aptitude for magic. This meant that her entire family doted upon her and did their best to include her whenever they could, but there were some times that Poppy was excluded despite their best efforts.

Vanessa Clearwater: Mother

Rosalia Clearwater: Eldest

Violette Clearwater: 2nd born

Alysum Clearwater: 3rd born

Poppy Clearwater: 4th born

OCCUPATION:

Rosalia doesn’t currently have an occupation. Before she fled Britain, she was a full time member of the Order and devoted all her time to the cause. Once she was set up in Brazil, she picked up a waitressing job in a muggle restaurant to pay for her rent and food. Now though, as she steps out into the familiar gloomy atmosphere of London, she has nothing. No occupation, no home - she’s not even sure if she’s still a member of the Order.

ROLE WITHIN THE ORDER/THOUGHTS ABOUT THE ORDER: What is their purpose in the Order? How do they feel about the organization within a failing war? Remember, the Order is also an illegal vigilante organization and that can be difficult for characters to navigate.

It was her home. She was a defender, a light against the evils of the world and now she was nothing. A burden to the people she once called family and a liability if she were ever caught. The guilt haunts her - knowing the risk her actions and memory could have.

And still…some part of her wants to be welcomed back, to rejoin the people she loves. Time is short and survival isn’t guaranteed - the gut wrenching article she read in the Prophet confirmed that. The darkness was spreading and she had to get back out there on the front lines…even if it meant her death.

Penance by sacrifice - could she ever make it up to the Order for leaving? If not..she would give her life for those that hadn’t fallen. She would do all she could to pass on what she’d learned to other members of the Order but, as far as she was concerned, her life was tainted and although she was ready to fight, she knew that her life wasn’t worth the same as someone like James Potter.

SURVIVAL:

She fled to Brazil and for a while, could not practice her magic at all. Each spell was a fight and every time she reached for it, it felt tired and lethargic. She got set up in a muggle beach side town and started working in a restaurant to make enough to live. She’s going back to Britain now and to be honest, doesn’t intend to survive. Her survival is no longer on the table - the survival of the Light is all that matters now.

RELATIONSHIPS:

Fragile, non-existent, shattered - coming back, she doesn’t expect any sort of warm welcome. She misses them all though, her heart aching every time she thought of back home, thought of sending another owl, of just picking up and going back to the friends and family she once knew. But her dreams are haunted by their scorn, by their betrayal and she finds herself cowering away in her small bachelor room.

Moody - he was her friend, suspicious and rough and always on edge but someone she could trust with her life. And now….well, if he didn’t hex her on sight, she would think it was a miracle. If she could just talk with him, explain why she left how she did…maybe he’d at least give her the time of day.

OOC EXPLORATION:

SHIPS/ANTI-SHIPS:

Note that there are no planned endgame ships set in this roleplay. There are a few characters who are in romantic relationships at the start of the game, but it will be up to players to decide if those relationships can survive the war. This question does not guarantee that any ship will happen, it is merely for fellow players to see where your interest might lie.

Really, anything organic. Will have to work through trauma - doesn’t intend to survive war - why make long term commitments? Open to old flames/exes as well, if we want to establish something from Hogwarts time or from before she fled the country. Could be almost anyone in Hogwarts time and after that time, anyone who was part of the Order. Would never have a relationship with a known death eater - I am down for twists and subterfuge and betrayal though along those lines.

WHAT PRIVILEGES AND BIASES DOES YOUR CHARACTER HAVE?

Rosalia definitely has some biases that she got while attending Hogwarts. Competitive by nature, it only made sense to her that of course Gryffindors were better than Slytherins. You only had to look at how the Quidditch games went or where the Slytherin common room was located - the dungeons were creepy and gross and those thoughts just translated over to the students who lived there.

As time went on and she slowly had smaller courses with more classmates from different houses, her immediate disgust and distrust began to go away. She was more likely to treat her fellow Slytherin classmates with respect and even joked around with them, but if she ran into unfamiliar Slytherins in the halls, her gaze would harden and that suspicion would filter back in.

She’s grown a fair bit since her school days and having travelled, does understand that you can’t judge someone based on how they were sorted or who they were at a young age. Still, there are some microaggressions she can’t shake and it takes a purposeful thought process to correct herself when she notices them.

Muggles - Rosalia has two different trains of thoughts when it comes to non-magical folk. The first one is based on Poppy - the baby of the family and someone who needs to be protected. She doesn’t have the luxury of magic to rely on and she struggled a little more compared to the rest of her family. If Rosalia had to compare, she would say it was most similar to seeing a puppy on the side of the road in a box that needed a home.

The other train of thought stems from what Vanessa has told her about her father. How he didn’t want to be a part of her life, how unreliable he was, how much better off they are without him. It’s normal for muggle parents to be absent from their child’s life and Vanessa didn’t want that for any of her kids.

Living among muggles hasn’t warmed Rosalia’s heart to them. If anything, the resentful side of her has grown - working in a customer service role has shown her the worst side muggles have to offer.

WHAT ARE YOU MOST LOOKING FORWARD TO?

Honestly, I was looking around different roleplays on tumblr and I really loved the premise of this group. I also liked how the plot drops really incorporated all characters involved and seems to include everyone.

I’ve also kept thinking about this group after I messaged the main a month ago about the potential FC change. I literally couldn’t get Rosalia out of my head.

PLOT DROP IDEAS:

I really like the idea of exploring the trauma and PTSD that Rosalia has and how this will affect her return to the Order. I also like the idea of her not succeeding when she initially returns and forcing her to deal with some of the trauma she’s been avoiding.

I also love the idea of getting her to a place where she can produce a full bodied patronus again as she hasn’t been able to since she was hit by the curse.

#homenumaccepted

5 notes · View notes

codenamesazanka · 5 years

Text

Almost all we know of Toga’s life is from what Chitose Kizuki/Curious tells us, trying to create her sensationalist story that will benefit the MLA cause. There’s some truth in it, I’m sure, but despite how certain Curious’s narration was, she asks, “Were my hypotheses correct?” That jumped out at me, reminded me that we still haven’t gotten Toga’s side of the story. We don’t know if all the facts are completely real.

Tragedy porn is a particularly insidious type of dehumanization, and that’s what Curious was trying to do to Toga. She arrogantly assumes she knows all about Toga’s life, her heart, her quirk, and already had a certain angle in mind. To Curious, Toga isn’t a person, she isn’t a girl who has her own feelings and desires and way of relating to her quirk; instead Toga’s made to only be what Curious and the eventual readers of the article sees her as - to be pitied, to be a lesson of a sort, to be an inspirational ‘scripture’.

People like Curious has made Toga’s life hard to live. She’s a different type than Toga’s parent that had Toga repress her quirk, but still just as harmful. Toga is fascinating case to be studied and fixed; Toga is a demonic child to be shunned and feared; Toga is an insane villain that needs to be captured - all turns Toga into an object to have others project their feelings onto.

It’s because of her patronizing attitude towards Toga, though, that Curious dies. Hubris before the fall. She underestimated Toga, she was careless, she only believed what she knew - “the brief definitely said she could only change appearances!” - and so she got caught in Toga’s Zero Gravity. And then Toga kills her, in a literal fall. Go Toga!

Of course, we’re continued to be fed biased information, in a meta sense - the manga acts as a sort of unreliable narrator: we only get snippets of what Toga is thinking, the character is a villain that’s to remain terrifying and inhuman, and the author’s insistence on drawing that ahego face objectifies Toga for a specific purpose as well. :/

Still, I like that Toga snatches back her story. There is a sense of melancholy - she envies the trust and closeness between friends and loved ones denied to her, she had to behave a certain way to have the world treat her a little better, she’s been on the run and it’s not because she enjoys running wild to serial kill. But!!!

Toga refutes Curious’s ‘facts’ and doesn’t see it that way - she’s happy, her use of her quirk is hers and her way of demostrating affection - and not the only explanation for why she does the things she does! She imitating the ones she loves, she’s watched them and got to know them, she finds comfort and power and strength in thinking of them. She wins her mini boss battle with that.

Toga’s going to live and die the way she wants. And she finally has someone to truly depend on - the League, and especially Shigaraki Tomura, who’s going to destroy everything she doesn’t like. She’s trusting him to do so.

#himiko toga #Himiko Toga #Toga #Chitose Kizuki #mha #bnha #heroaca #spoilers #Chapter 226 #Ch 226 #nalslastworkingbraincell #really cool chapter!

433 notes · View notes

grantebanja · 4 years

Text

In the midst of the current pandemic and the recent protests on Black Lives Matter, we set out some information on the topic as below.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) began as a trending topic on Twitter in 2016, the current wave of protests were triggered by the death of George Floyd and a number of other black people in the U.S.

The core message of BLM is about people coming together in allyship against racism, essentially ‘Black Lives Matter as much as everyone else’s lives and should be treated as such.’

Black Lives Matter is a movement for social justice and not a political organisation, despite people acting as self-appointed spokespeople and making claims on its behalf.

There is no specific charter or set of policies of BLM that all its supporters subscribe to.

To properly tackle this treatment of black people under the law and within society there have been calls for the identification of, and an end to, systematic and institutional racism.

A Brief History

I have written a piece below to attempt to speak to those that wish to read on about the issues and suggest some ways to address them.

I must preface this by saying these are my own personal views and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

I feel compelled to add some gravity to this. These issues of injustice under the law are distressing and pressing to many UK based black people because they mirror the daily experience also faced here, albeit to a lesser degree of violence.

No single individual, unless knowingly and overtly racist, should feel any personal guilt or shame from this piece. We can however look to learn so as to effect change in the future.

The piece is designed to give some insight into the issue of racism and discrimination and how it can manifest itself in our daily life.

I am happy to discuss any of this article with any individuals in confidence.

A Brief History…

In order to tackle the issue of systemic and institutional racism, one has to first look at its causes and its effect. We know its effect is the discrimination of black and non-white people under the law and many other measurable metrics.

Racism is the discrimination of people based on the colour of their skin and their being in a different ‘race’.

People are born indiscriminate, thus any inherent biases are learnt behaviour.

This raises the question why have the learning and ergo teaching of this racial discrimination become so commonplace to systemic and institutional proportions?

The answer, lies in Europe and their American cousins’ history of imperialism and colonialism. This started with the enslavement of Africans and the commodification of black people’s lives and land.

people in the UK have always been taught that the original insurrections into Africa were about introducing religion and civilising the natives. Similar ‘missions’ and methods were adopted by Europeans in every inhabited continent across the world. However, what ensued was chattel enslavement, and the subsequent African colonisation, which remains one of the biggest atrocities in human history.

The resulting enrichment of the European countries and the U.S on the back of these atrocities, I believe has been stripped or ‘airbrushed’ from national consciousness. There is very little collective or national guilt about this fact, in the same way there is with other atrocities in human history.

In an attempt to justify these atrocities and the imperialism that ensued, the ideology that that these missions were to introduce civility, where there had once been savagery and backwardness, were invented. This resulted in concerted effort to portray black people as ‘savage’ and ‘backward’.

This was the inception of the racist agenda toward black People.

How Does This Affects Us ALL Today?

The effect of this agenda to portray black people as ‘savage’ and ‘backward’ has evolved over the subsequent years to less insidious stereotypes, many of which you are aware of.

It all stems from a perception perpetuated through media; from outright racist or stereotypical depictions to the current use of softer language or perspectives taken on white people doing exactly the same thing black people do. This has been propagated by socio-economic policy and generally taught down through generations, which has resulted in an implicit and often unconscious bias, that affects the way black people are viewed and treated by wider society.

Studies show that black people are disproportionally over represented in reports on crime, acting roles for black men are disproportionately hyper athletic, criminal or intimidating characters, punishment for crime, arrest rates, school expulsion rates and career progression. Nearly every metric of the standard of human life has black people at the negative end.

The main stereotype that has resulted to the unjust killing of black people is that they are ‘innately violent and criminal’. General stereotypes for black women are as loud, disruptive, aggressive, opinionated, feisty and domineering characters.

At the sharp end, these implied biases often impact the way police will treat a black suspects, judges will give harsher sentences or how a recruiter interviews.

In the more middle ground, there are micro-aggressions; which are comments or actions that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally states a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalised group. It can be as innocent as complimenting a black colleague on something that is taken for granted by all other colleagues, as it reinforces the stereotype that we are somehow an exception to the rule.

Being acutely aware of how we as a race of people are portrayed, makes black people adopt unnatural characteristics. For black women it often leads to them often adopting submissive non-confrontational personas to avoid such stereotypes. This corrective behaviour can take away from the strong assertive characters that others without this insecurity benefit from. As such their true potential may never been seen, to an employer’s detriment.

But I’m personally not racist

Probably not, but throughout time, this implicit bias has resulted in black people not being afforded the same human & civil rights, opportunity and general treatment as our white counterparts.

This trend is generally prevalent in every measurable metric of the human experience; healthcare, housing, education, careers and justice under the law. There is a wealth of statistics, facts and figures globally to back this assertion up.

These incidents are symptoms of systemic discrimination, where the systems are often setup in a way that unfairly impacts people of colour. So although the people working within these systems may not have discriminatory views, they are inadvertently perpetuating a system that inherently is.

The resulting issues of this systemic discrimination over numerous generations has assisted in the reinforcing negative stereotypes and the biases mentioned earlier.

How does it make many ‘Black People’ feel?

These issues form an insight into the ‘black experience’ and leads to many black people feeling like they must ensure that they act in a way that does not re-inforce these stereotypes and feeling personally ashamed when others do. As mentioned, this leads to having to ensure you correct all your behaviour, all of the time, in a way that people of other ethnicities do not. Enhanced corrective behaviour and an almost religious like adherence to always ensuring that you are in control.

For instance, it is rare that you would see a black person act emotively or confrontationally to a situation in the workplace, where people from other racial backgrounds when confronted with the same scenario would.

Can you think of a time a black person in your office has ever raised their voice, cried, and been ashamedly drunk at a work event, outwardly bullish or confrontational?

I can think of many instances, I cannot think of one where that person was black.

I am not arguing that this behaviour is acceptable, or that any person should not adopt some adaptive behaviour for the work environment. The point is that others do not carry the need for such enhanced corrective behaviour to ensure they are not be judged by their race and reinforce the negative stereotypes.

There is also an overarching feeling of not being comfortable enough to correct or address behaviours and systems you know to be inherently discriminatory for fear of being labelled a troublemaker.

In many ways, it’s just easier to ignore and swallow small indignities and instances of casual racism. It’s easier not to ask the Security Guard why he asked me for ID but not my white colleague. It is often not worth challenging the small things, as a) it can get exhausting b) it can get you the label of ‘playing the race’ card and c) it’s probably worth choosing which battles are worth fighting.

These are examples of workplace specific issues that nearly all black people live with. Not to mention the wider issues that have to be navigated throughout daily life.

It should noted that, any marginalised group may have experienced the some of the same issues in microcosms, but they tend not to have the implicit connotations and stereotypes to contend with. Most other groups also have the opportunity to assimilate to the dominant culture either immediately or generationally, black people and indeed all people of colour do not.

#racism blacklivesmatter blm

1 note · View note

atheistforhumanity · 5 years

Note

Do you think all forms of spiritually/religion are bad? Like if someone believes in some sort of higher power but didn't follow an organized religion would you still consider that to be bad for society?

Hello Anon, thanks for this question. I think this is actually an important question.

So I’m sure you’ve read my posts where I’ve described religious beliefs as detrimental for society. To be clear, believing in a god does make a person bad, and the idea of a god in of itself is not bad for society.

What is a negative for society as a whole is the lack of critical thinking involved in coming to those beliefs, whether connected to an organized religion or not. The problem is that when you normalize the idea that making a factual affirmation, which you use to make decisions in life without any evidence sets an incredibly low and dangerous standard for how informed a citizen is. The results of this low bar can be seen all over the world. A young girl was sentenced to 15 years in prison in Iran for taking off her hijab. Conservatives want to legalize bigotry based on religious beliefs. Terrorists become suicide bombers for reward in the after life. People are beaten to death by mobs if accused of killing a cow. In parts of the Middle East and Africa women are not allowed to learn or be equal, due to religious beliefs. Roughly 900 people committed mass suicide because of the rogue teachings of one man. I could go on and on.

But this isn’t specifically a religious problem. We have people on television chasing down an imaginary creature called Big Foot. We have people who inflict horrible mental pain on themselves because they believe they were abducted by aliens. We have people who think the Earth is flat. Most people hold some superstitions. I can’t tell you how many times at work people would yell at me if I commented on having a slow day. It was so frustrating. We have racism, sexism, and all kinds of prejudice phobias. We have climate change deniers, who have literally caused death and destruction all of the world. We have corporations that knowingly choose wealth of the survival of everyone on the planet. Irrationality is what’s bad for society.

If we cannot all live in the same world and recognize a mutual reality that it sews deep dysfunction in society, and the world is full of this insidious thinking everywhere. If you can just “decide” that a god exists and they are your guiding light, then how can you accurately assess political and social issues. People would exclaim, well of course I can, but too many people just create opinions out of thin air or biases passed down, without being informed or thinking critically. People think things like having long hair or baggy pants makes you a crook. Or that if you criticize the government that you’re being unpatriotic. There are still people in the forest who think pictures steal your soul. Everyone thinks they “know” we have a soul. People make serious life decisions based on the condition of their soul.

Religious or spiritual beliefs tend to be the most damaging because they are the most widespread and are connected to war, persecution, or oppression all throughout history. If ISIS got their hands on a nuclear bomb, they wouldn’t hesitate to wipe people off the face the Earth.

Humanity cannot survive in the long term with this type of thinking being so prevalent with the dangerous technology we possess. The power we have over the Earth’s climate and to destroy each other is terrifying, yet there are irrational people all over the world that would commit extreme acts in the name of their unfounded beliefs.

We need to raise the bar all around the world, and make a global citizenry that always puts critical thinking first and rejects the outrageous methods of faith and irrationality that have characterized our cultures. I do believe we are heading that way, but religion continues to normalize irrational thinking and behavior. They make it socially acceptable to be irrational in other areas of life. We need to much more concerned about agreement on reality, not just live in a wild free for all of made up beliefs.

#atheism #religion #logic #critical thinking

17 notes · View notes

megrimlocke · 4 years

Text

How We Are All Going to Die Laughing

The other day, I was looking at a post made by one of my favorite internet comic artists. The guy used to be something I’d read in the army newspapers, next to the adds for cheap TVs at the post exchange, but these days it’s mostly a facebook feed I occasionally read. The artist and writer behind “PVT Murphy” (though these days Murphy’s a sergeant, I’m aging after all it seems) was annoyed at Facebook showing him a shopping page offering what amounted to white nationalist (US neonazi, if you prefer) paraphernalia.

Now, I pointed out that this was what the robot had concluded he wanted to see, and honestly none of us should be surprised by this. Military members lean right, and in the age of Trump this means that radicalization is around every corner- though for the record it always has been. In some insidious ways with a cancer of racists and bigots among our ranks, sure, I know because being gay I was targeted by a few myself, but also in more subtle ways.

I once watched a man scream at some Iraqis who were emptying a waste bin nearby, screaming that they didn’t get him, because he’d been the target of an IED attack two hours prior. Those men had no way in hell of having anything to do with it, but the guy that hit us got away free and the trash guys looked like someone he could defiantly vent his feelings of helplessness and victimhood upon in a vain effort to reclaim his power. I’m not condoning it, I’m just saying that sometimes the path to prejudice isn’t paved with propaganda and privilege.

I have every faith in the artist who draws PVT Murphy himself, but if you attract the attention of a lot of white supremacists, then probably the robot is going to conclude that you might want to look at some of the things that all the people who like your posts are looking at. Hence the shop page that offered a wall pinup of a templar knight preparing to smite the saracen to defend (white) Christendom with a few crass remarks about Islam written on it.

Now I explained, in truncated terms, how the robot made this call. The artist wasn’t excited about this explanation, and in fairness no one is excited about the black mirror showing them something ugly, it’s almost like an automated attack. But the machine was really just trying to be helpful. It wasn’t programmed to be sensitive to racial issues, and certainly the people who took out the add didn’t take that into their considerations. It identified a pattern and arranged the delivery of data that conformed with its instructions based upon the data input.

Now, some right wing dude decided to join in this discussion to point out that the robot didn’t know what it was talking about, included the terms “lib” and “snowflake” in his post, and suggested that if the robot had any idea who he was it wouldn’t keep showing him liberal content- after all he always used the laugh react on it. I pointed out this part as well, but I’d like to go into a deeper analysis for this discourse.

The right, and perhaps a lot of people using the reacts on facebook, has decided that you can use the laugh react to express a dismissive chuckle to the words of others. I think this has several sweeping, problematic implications.

First, the people using the internet are using it to each other, and are either unaware of the robots they share the internet with or ignorant regarding how they function. The robots do not interpret Laugh as a dismissive gesture. The data they gather from this is that you were paying attention to something and decided to put a reaction on it. The Laugh react is not a downvote on reddit, the robot, innocent little helperbot it was made to be, assumes you are amused by the thing you clicked on, and so endeavors to further tickle your funny bone. In short, it’s your good-natured wholesome friend who doesn’t understand the difference between you laughing with liberals and laughing at us. It thinks we’re all friends.

This leads to the second problem. If you are a conservative and you do not care to be bothered with leftist posts, then using the laugh react doesn’t help you at all. It further engages you with the content that annoys you. The stuff that caused you to try and put on your dismissive “ha ha tawdry communist drivel” mid-atlantic aristocrat voice is going to keep appearing. If you’re the sort given to conspiracy theories (and you are my bro, you still hate Hillary for the pizza thing), you might draw the conclusion that you are being targeted by leftist internet operatives, spamming your feed with leftist propaganda.

The truth is you’re spamming yourself with leftist content because your socially clueless helpful robot pal is gonna go out and find more things for you to laugh at. You’re not special or important enough for leftist internet operatives to target your facebook feed with propaganda attacks, and you have damned yourself to an experience on facebook in which you are bombarded with annoying or even blood-boiling content. All of this guidance, by the way, is equally applicable to left leaning users of the laugh react as a dismissive gesture.

What this does is contribute to people’s paranoia. It makes them believe that an enemy that doesn’t exist is trying to get into their heads. It fills their electronic lives with incendiary content that makes them angry and it encourages them further to continue to have generally unproductive electric arguments with people that they disagree with, leaving them exhausted by a brain full of cortisol.

Personally, I think the Left’s electric sin is more to do with our frankly superior witticisms (sorry Right, you invented and stuck to Nobama, you’re just not witty) and the craving so many of us seem to have for delivering that sick burn one-liner so cutting and succinct that it stops the conservative dead in his rhetorical tracks seems to consume online political discourse on the left almost as aggressively as call-out culture does when arguing among our own.

In the effort to sell us more things by pandering to our professed passions, the capitalist internet has created an electric rage engine that wraps you into one heated argument after another among people who are not listening to one another and who are learning to disengage from hard discussions. This last part is so dangerous to our democracy.

To be clear, I’m not lamenting the death of compromise specifically. There can be no compromise on the income gap, healthcre, free elections, or the rights of people who are darker in skin than I. But the electric rage engine makes it difficult to even have conversations about these things in the real world, and if you’re not talking to the people you disagree with face to face in the here and now, your chances of finding compromise are precisely zero percent, nevermind actually changing their views.

Have you noticed yourself having conversations with people that could just be copy pasted almost word for word off the tumblr where they “informed” themselves about this topic? I’ll bet that you have. Or else, more dangerously, you have begun to avoid having such conversations at all with people. Have you ever been in a discussion turned friendly debate with your friend and realized after a few moments that the debate isn’t suddenly so friendly? I’m willing to bet it’s been a while, so much so that you might even be shocked if it happens.

People like to go on about how fraught the holidays can be because of how politically charged family dinners can be, but I can’t remember such an experience within the past ten years. No throw down arguments, no discussions about the merits of one tax policy or another- we can’t even seem to discuss weighty matters with people who are blood kin anymore unless we already know they agree with our own views- and thanks to the electric rage engine, we can know, in precis, what their views are and what we think about them as a result long before we ever think about what to put in our covered dish. The opportunity for someone stepping into a landmine social or foreign policy issue at family and social gatherings has been eliminated, and with it the ability of the dinner table to serve as a place for families to reach consensus by resolving their arguments. We don’t talk politics with people who disagree with us in the real world anymore, we all just avoid it and spit our venom on the internet, achieving nothing but our mounting unhappiness and dislike for one another.

I have a young colleague at work, maybe 25, who demonstrated the ability to just promptly end a discussion last week. Now it was a nonsense discussion and in fairness the participants had gotten into trolling him for kicks, saying a blue shirt was green on purpose or some other nonsense, I don’t remember the particulars. But what I do remember vividly was the ease and efficiency with which he was able to simply end the discussion, how disengagement came so very naturally to him. I despise the phrase “agree to disagree” because it means that the argument hasn’t been resolved, but it is at least a sign that there was actual thought going on between participants. No such gesture here. My colleague put down the conversation and simply went back to his work with all the ease with which you might put down your phone when you decided you were done arguing with someone, and the ability to do this in realspace chilled me to the bone.

Moreover, there is a certain epistemological nihilism that has arisen among us, suggesting that no one can truly know anything because the sources of information, with whatever omissions or biases they may possess, are a matter of consumerist choice rather than objective fact. We can’t agree on what is real anymore because if you dislike someone’s account of events, you can simply get someone else to present a more palatable story and declare the other people liars.

If you don’t like what you read on NBC, you can simply tune to Fox to hear it told in a way that you choose to consume, often playing to your appetite for validation rather than your need for actionable information. We like feeling right, and the consumerist information economy has identified that as a means to get our attention long enough to upload some ads along with our news video of choice.

If the very identity of a person can be expressed by a computer algorithm and 4 or 5 hundred clicks across news articles, think pieces, and shopping pages, how easy will it be for the people who do understand how the machines work to begin influencing who we are?

In closing, I think every single one of us is developing a progressively more toxic relationship with the internet, particularly when it comes to political discourse, and I think that if we aren’t especially careful our ability to simply shut down and switch off, while healthy on the web, is going to begin invading our lives in the waking world in insidious ways that will hurt our ability to function as a cohesive society. I think that the marketing robots and the very act of making a profile and posting to it things that are important to you are dangerous influences on our sense of identity, and that by wrapping our sense of identity in the ideas and products that we consume in such a contrived, calculated fashion that we are restricting our ability to be flexible in our thinking, making us less able to get along with one another.

I’ve been on a soft departure from Facebook for a good while now, making it my loose rule to stick to messenger and instagram because I like indulging my vanity but for the most part I want to be interacting with people directly and not selling myself for likes when I use these things. Real attention from real people is much much better.

In 2020, I invite you to join me in kicking facebook or your own social media vice altogether and bringing our political lives and our debates back into the real world so that we can practice and re-acquire the skills of persuasion and discussion; not as a cynic call to begin trying to convert every conservative we can find, but for the sake of a political discourse that serves as less of a battleground with immovable ideological fortresses and more of a crucible in which the useless can be burned away and useful consensus and meaningful, mind changing-discussions can be had once again. We cannot afford to keep unsubscribing from one another if our democracy is to survive. (<- leftist witticism addiction in demonstration)

4 notes · View notes

franthetutor · 6 years

Text

Laurel, Yanni and McGurk: Why your life is a lie

Update: I’m not dead! I know I haven’t been posting regularly. I’m sorry. It’s down to two things really: a) I’ve been very busy with the new job and b) I’ve frankly really struggled to find any kind of inspiration lately - I suppose that’s what happens when your life is taken over by your job. And you’re an auditor.

But this week this whole Yanni/Laurel brought about a bit of a brainwave - not least because it’s done nothing but do my nut in. Literally every one of my social media feeds is infected with these words. Apart from Twitter - but only because it contains an option to mute words - but even then I’m still swamped by the overhyped, equally annoying sequel: green needle/brainstorm.

However, as with most things I hate, I’m going to put my back into this.

A few things are going to happen in the next few minutes: we’re going to unpack the explanations behind these phenomena, and then I’m going to try to shatter your perception of the world.

The Yanni/Laurel thing has now been confirmed as an aural phenomenon: if you were to plot the frequencies present in the recording against time, much like something you’d get on Audacity or any other kind of audio-editing software, you would see that this clip is made up of a mixture of high and low frequency tones. Yanni is formed from the higher frequencies. Laurel is characterised by lower frequencies. It’s like listening to what are essentially two different tracks of music that have been overlaid. If your ear is more attuned to higher frequencies (perhaps the younger among you), or you’re the kind of animal that turns down the bass on your speakers, you’re going to hear Yanni. The vast majority of people however hear Laurel, because, well, we’re older.

Now we come to Laurel’s little sister: green-needle/brainstorm. She’s a little smarter, a tad more interesting and she was allowed to wear makeup from a younger age. What you can hear in this recording can be changed depending on simply the word you’re looking at when you hear it, which is much more than a physical phenomenon - it’s a psychological one. We know something to be true - that we’re hearing the same sound each time, but our perception of it changes. This is interesting for two reasons: firstly, on a psychological level it helps us to dissect how our brains work, and secondly, more importantly, it proves to us that objective truth is a fallacy.

Green needle/brainstorm is a slightly more evolved example of the McGurk effect, which is a widely known and studied phenomenon where your brain can interpret the same audio/visual recording as two different sounds depending on the context it’s given. This context often comes in the form of a visual cue, which is much better explained by the folks at Horizon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0. Ultimately it comes about because of the top-down processing in our brains. What does this mean? Well, effectively our brains process a whole load of information all at once, and uses its analysis of this to work out the most probable explanation of our current circumstances to make sense of the world. For example, imagine you’re on safari. There’s not a cloud in the sky, you’ve got the sunroof down and you’re driving through a woody looking area. You hear a dense flock of startled birds swiftly fly out of the branches above you as your jeep slams through the undergrowth. They’re so close you can feel the beat of their wings in the air around you, and suddenly you feel something cold drip onto your hair and down your neck.

You’ve surely been shat on.

You look up and see a monkey peering down at you from the sunroof, drooling.

But for a second, you believed you’d been shat on, well, because you hadn’t noticed the monkey. Hey, we’re not perfect.

Additionally your analysis often relies on the outcomes of events that it’s seen before and it projects these probabilities on the current situation in order to work out what’s going on. For example, if you’ve had a horrid cough before and went to the GP, who told you it was pneumonia, the next time you get a cough you’re more likely to think it’s pneumonia again, even though that’s actually quite unlikely. The McGurk effect combines these two analytical phenomena. Most of the time you hear a hard “k” sound and seen a particular mouth shape, it’s turned out to be a word starting with that letter. But if that same exact sound is accompanied by a “g” mouth shape, your brain goes “Well, based on past experience, that word must begin with a G”.

TLDR: we can easily trick ourselves, and others based on the subset and quality of information we allow ourselves to see.

As well as being a fun illusion, like all other illusions it highlights something more insidious: we’re all primed for bias - it’s inherently how our brain deals with the mound of information it receives every single millisecond of every day. If we didn’t skip straight to conclusions we’d end up overthinking everything and ultimately not taking any action. Evolutionarily speaking, our ancestors would have died if they didn’t spring into action on hearing twigs breaking, assuming it was indicative of an imminent attack. The benefit of catching our predators pre-arrack vastly outweighed the excess energy expended on false alarms. Out of our ancestors, those who were the quickest to leap into action on hearing the quietest of sounds lived the longest. However, in modern day terms this kind of cranial processing doesn’t work as well. Sure, based on he gait of the person in front of you at Kings Cross, you might predict they’re going to take a hard swerve left to the Victoria line and you can use that information to prevent an embarrassing collision. I’m not saying this fundamental system of processing doesn’t have its merits - I’m just saying it has fewer: we don’t spend every waking moment fending off predators any more, because we’ve built infrastructure, terraformed land, driven predators out of their natural habitats and evolved societies that provide you with security against dangerous individuals in return for a cut of your income.

So we find ourselves in conflict. We have brains that are used to using whatever information is conveniently available and pre-existing knowledge to judge, but vastly reduced the need for that judgement. We’ve also reduced the benefits of this judgement - if anything it’s often frowned upon. We’ve developed a new term for unnecessary judgement: prejudice. And we often think we’re well aware of our own prejudices and can therefore escape them - but I’m here to tell you that the vast majority of us can’t. Take this for example:

Try to memorise these words: Adventure, curious, sun, brave, clean, friendly, ocean, white, fruit, learn, free, wholesome, holiday, talented.

Now read this: Alan is making plans for his gap year. He wants to visit the South America but is struggling to fit that in with his plans to take part in a motorcross rally. He missed it the year before because he broke his leg in the practice round. He needs to find his passport, which he lost on his last trip back from Bali and hopes his friend accidentally picked up. He also wants to visit India and needs to find time to move into his flat in Camden before he starts at his London uni.

What do you think of Alan?

What would you have thought had you memorised these words instead: Jealous, green, selfish, cocaine, petty, reckless, red, corrupt, idiot, lad, careless, clown, rude.

Go back and read the paragraph again - see what you think.

He might have seemed a bit of a gap yah wanker that time, methinks.

This is something called priming, which is an extension of the broken thinking we discussed earlier. It’s exactly how advertising works - we can’t help but associate things together when they’re close together, either spatially or temporally. You judged Alan because those lists of words made you linger on different sets of details in the narrative each time. If you start to form an opinion, you’re more likely to see details that reinforce them.

So what’s my point? I’ve just shown you that this kind of thinking is inescapable: you knew where this article was going and yet you likely painted a picture of two different Alans. I’ve told you that our brains are hard-wired for bias. That our perception of the world is inherently, inescapably warped. That we all have our blind spots. That we can convince ourselves of anything depending on what details we choose to notice. And that our choices of details are rooted in past experience. The logical conclusion of this is that as we get older, we get more biased. Something happens, we learn from it, maybe even form a slight opinion, we stumble across varied details in the subsequent hours, days, weeks of our lives, and out of these details our brains are primed to pick out those that are familiar, opinions and beliefs are justified and strengthened, our filter for details gets narrower, our opinion gets stronger, our blinkers come down even more, so on and so forth. Incidentally it’s eerily similar to how evolution works.

We’re built from bias.

This means that in order to even be able to grasp at objective truth, you have to work. Really work. Hard. And I think this is something that is totally overlooked in our current political climate. We all think that facts are facts - they’re not, simply by virtue of being beheld by us. We, these flawed, inherently biased networks of synapses in cages of bone and bags of skin. But we need to guard against this. No man is an island, and as a society we need to believe in the concept of objective truth, even if we accept we’ll never achieve it. If we don’t, we lose our baseline for discussion, leading to a society which is unable to sort opinion from fact: one in which radical, absurd and harmful ideas could propagate at the same speed as those more closely aligned with common sense, driven by whimsy. Truth is the tare weight for any battle of wits - without it, there could be no consensus.

So if we must believe in an objective truth, but can only ever see it through a glass, darkly, so to speak, how can we polish the lens?

This brings us full circle to audit, my bread and butter, and perhaps why the question of truth is at the front of my mind. Audit is fully preoccupied with objectivity and truth - firms drop clients and lose money because of it all the time. This is because our job is to take the draft financial statements a company prepares before they’re published and ensure that the figures in them haven’t just been made up, or tweaked. We need to assess whether the numbers show an adequately “true and fair” view of what’s happened to that company during the year. As with everything, we can never be 100% certain of the truth, or fairness of accounts, so we test the numbers to a reasonable level of assurance.

Believe it or not, there are a couple of aspects that are quite interesting about it:

Firstly, sampling. Much like biologists attempting to study animals in a large habitat, the feat of fully auditing every single transaction a company makes during the year is nigh on impossible. Instead we choose a representative sample of transactions and look at those in more detail to work out if they were recorded correctly. We’re always terrified of choosing the wrong number of transactions - if we audit too few, we might miss one large one which was fraudulent or recorded wrongly - one typo could change an overall profit to a loss. If I wasn’t thorough enough, I could lose my job over that.

Secondly, we rely heavily on the people running the audited company to tell us what happened during the year. If for example they failed to tell us that they underwent a huge merger, we might audit them against the wrong set of financial standards. We might think it’s all fine by those standards - but that’s a false positive. We used the wrong measure of truth, because we didn’t have all of the facts.

So why did I bother to tell you all this?

Because auditors measure truth for a living, and you might learn something from the highly discussed and regulated procedures we use day in, day out. The next time you find yourself judging something - anything, for that matter, however small - ask yourself these questions:

How much detail can I subtract from the situation before I change my view of it?

Is there a detail or perspective I’m missing because I’m being primed by my prior beliefs, assumptions or experiences?

If you find the threshold for Q1 and an example for Q2, you’ll be much closer to the truth than you were before.

You never know, you might end up finding truth in the most unlikely of places, and applying measured skepticism can lead to some of the most - sometimes surprising - eye-opening revelations. Those “MY LIFE HAS BEEN A LIE” moments. Never be afraid of disagreeing with your past opinions - it’s a sign of learning.

Some great resources:

On the illusion of pain, and how the perception of context guides belief: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3NmTE-fJSo

On humans as slightly wonky bipedal brain machines: Kluge - The haphazard evolution of the human mind, Gary Marcus

#yanni #laurel #green needle #brainstorm #illusion #truth #trump #politics #objectivity #philosophy #psychology #mcgurk #what do you hear #original #snaprevise

3 notes · View notes

badkatdesignsmastersblog · 3 years

Text

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cuddy, Luke. BioShock and Philosophy : Irrational Game, Rational Book. Chichester, West Sussex, Uk ; Malden, Ma, John Wiley And Sons, Inc, 2015.

This book is one of my favorites for discussing the inherent political and philosophical issues in games. The Bioshock franchise has a lot to say about rejecting control and programming, be it the programming of polite society (“would you kindly”) or the more metaphorical rejection of a tyrannical parent’s expectations (Elizabeth Comstock’s entire character arc), and these myriad messages are parsed and considered through numerous philosophical and sociological frameworks. It constantly questions the ethical and moral implications of the many decisions a player can make in these games and pushes many varying views on the arcs of the different characters. It is a fascinating look at how games can help develop a critical mind towards structures in power through consistent diegetic writing and references to prominent (and wrong, in Ayn Rand’s case) thinkers in its scant dialogue.

Dyer-Witheford, Nick, and Greig De Peuter. Games of Empire : Global Capitalism and Video Games. Minneapolis, University Of Minnesota Press, 2009.

Yet another book to feature leftist views on the history of gaming (this entry was written like third to last chronologically), this one is more concerned about how technology that was once used to code subversive counter-culture gaming experiments in the 1970’s has since been expropriated to further capitalist and neocolonial interests and goals. As visual mass media like films and video games and TV has since supplanted print media (posters and print ads), all sorts of insidious agendas and troubling trends can and have been implanted subtly into what we normally consume, such as the glorification of warmongering and conquest games that then link through to the literal army website for enlistment.

The book itself is a critique of late stage capitalism and neoliberal interests that have made up the backbone of real-life simulation games like Second Life and America’s Army, and a galling look at the slimy ways we are fed ideology through games.

Guillaume De Laubier, and Jacques Bosser. Sacred Spaces : The Awe-Inspiring Architecture of Churches and Cathedrals. New York, Abrams, 2018.

Growing up in a majority Catholic country with a highly devout grandmother and many aunts and uncles subscribing to that grift masquerading as a religion meant getting dragged to upwards of 40 church ceremonies and a lot of subtle proselytizing and covert conversions. All it did for me was make me fall in love with the gaudy excesses of its aesthetic sensibility. This book feeds my irrepressible need to look at Gothic architecture and stained glass and informs a lot of my aesthetic choices. The photography of church interiors and descriptive passages of the historical significance of Gothic architecture in relation to churches constantly informs my many aesthetic choices as both a goth and an agnostic/Jewish designer fascinated with the aesthetics of high Catholic camp and excess.

Hernandez, Patricia. “The Cyberpunk 2077 Crunch Backlash.” Polygon, 7 Oct. 2020, www.polygon.com/2020/10/7/21505804/cyberpunk-2077-cd-projekt-red-crunch-youtube-jason-schreier-labor-the-witcher-3.

DISCLAIMER: While I am aware of the opinions surrounding Polygon and its purported corporate agenda, I have elected to source this article regardless, as it is reporting on an important aspect of the industry and the future we as designers have to look forward to as crunch becomes more and more normalised.

This article details the ways that CDPR (CD Projekt Red) treats its designers and developers, with six day work weeks and broken promises of ending crunch. It also shines a light on how netizens and players respond to negative reporting of this trend and how worryingly apathetic and downright disdainful the responses are. Exploitation isn’t new in any industry, but it scares me that someone could die of overwork and the people they’re slaving away on a game for wouldn’t care because “that’s just the way the industry is”.

Kakutani, Michiko. The Death of Truth. London, William Collins, 2018.

This text is invaluable for anyone who cares about how biases in the media they consume changes and warps news based on what they care about, while also addressing the trend of fully fabricated news to scare less informed (and often conservative) constituents further into their holes of prejudice and uneducated opinions. As a media student it’s fascinating to consider, but as a person living in the world it’s downright necessary. The sooner a person is aware of the biases in the media they consume, the faster they can learn the importance of diversifying the voices they listen to and address the blind spots in their information pipelines, and this book is really good at diving into the kind of language and rhetoric to be on the lookout for to parse out bias, which keeps me on my toes about the media I want to put out in the world.

Löwy, Michael. “Capitalism as Religion: Walter Benjamin and Max Weber.” Historical Materialism, vol. 17, no. 1, 2009, pp. 60–73, www.urbanlab.org/articles/moneyspeak/Lowy%202009%20-%20capitalism%20as%20religion.pdf, 10.1163/156920609x399218. Accessed 28th November 2020.

This article attempts to interpret one of the socialist critic Walter Benjamin’s reflections on capitalism as a societal framework, and how it had at the time of writing (1920s) come to resemble something closer to a religious cult. The unpublished paper makes allusions to Max Weber’s book The Protestant Work Ethic and The “Spirit” of Capitalism and Ernst Bloch’s (then unpublished) Thomas Münzer as Theologian of the Revolution.

Currently I believe this critique of capitalism has only become more relevant. He couldn’t have predicted the ravenous cultlike behaviours of Apple fanatics but that’s nothing more than the end point of the behaviours he was critiquing a hundred years ago come to roost. It’s important for people involved in games to understand this and take it to heart if we don’t want the industry to be more overrun with triple A yearly sports releases and the latest instalment of “grizzled white guy with gun and traumatic backstory”.

Skal, David J. The Monster Show : A Cultural History of Horror. New York, Faber And Faber, 2001.

This work is basically a historical look at the western media’s depictions of its greatest monsters, often discussing contextually as part of the cultural zeitgeist of any given time. It’s a fascinating look at the intersection of fear and semiotics in our current cultural landscape and additionally details the creation and eventual decline of the Hayes Code and normalisation of queer-coding villains, although my personal viewpoint on the matter is that it would have benefited the text to have delved into monsters and their depictions across nonwestern cultures, because fears (outside the unknown and darkness) aren’t really universal, and it would have made an interesting contrast to see the differences between a traditional western vampire and a manananggal, but I digress.

Unrelated to its cultural discussions, it also serves as a pretty scathing report of theatre writer pettiness and old Hollywood drama.

Weber, Max, et al. The Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism and Other Writings. New York, Penguin Books, 2002.

This seminal work by turn of the century German theorist Max Weber proposes that a line exists between the puritanical beliefs that heavily relied on working oneself to the bone to be considered a moral person in the eyes of the lord and the eventual rise of industry and capitalism in western Europe. He juxtaposes the Protestant beliefs in productivity for its own sake to wash oneself clean of sin with the way that work under capitalism is presented as a way to contribute to society and, in some instances, repent and atone for transgressions and wrongdoings, arguing that one indelibly led to the other.

As a socialist (and non-Christian) myself, I believe I should be able to critically analyse the ethics of working myself (and others) to the bone, and why we’re taught it’s good and moral to push ourselves to physical and mental exhaustion. I don’t want my work to be created under conditions that are both spiritually and physically crushing, and this text is paramount to the analysis of so-called worker-oriented games companies and their policies towards worker welfare.

Woodcock, Jamie. Marx at the Arcade. Haymarket Books, 2019.

As a socialist myself I found this book to be a great insight into gaming as transgression from the systems of hierarchy around us. In a world where all anyone cares about is money, capital and the almighty bottom line, the idea that taking time for yourself is a revolutionary act fighting capitalism is definitely an interesting one. Yes, there are systems to serve within the game, but it’s a fascinating look at what we can consider transgression from the oppression of real life. Gaming is, according to the writer, an inherently unproductive activity where capital is not served (unless you work for a warcraft gold farming operation), and therefore a revolutionary action where you put yourself first. It can be an outlet for passion, and in some cases a coping mechanism for mental issues. It really made me hopeful in the industry I want to work in. (Disclaimer: I realise this barely scratches the surface of the book but it’s what stood out to me the most and what resonated with me the most.)

Wright, Alexa. Monstrosity : The Human Monster in Visual Culture. London, I.B. Tauris, 2013.

Another look at monsterhood, this time analysing our fears through personhood and how we as a culture project our fears on those who are different from us. I did a lot of research on monsterhood and how we see the other as inherently frightening for my final paper for university (which I will eventually upload as a reflective post because I still stand by a lot of it), and I think it’s valuable to know why we’re afraid of things so we can begin to unlearn harmful misconceptions of people who aren’t like us. As someone who wants to work in games art (focusing mainly on character art), I personally want to challenge the fear of the other through my work, and I want to use signifiers that are traditionally thought of as fearful to create more thoughtful art and hopefully help humanise that which was once considered hateful and gross.

#since apparently i needed one big post for it #i like how i laid mine out better BUT I GUESS I GOTTA DO IT THIS WAY FOR THE SAKE OF SUBMISSION #researchandinquiry #frickin making me redo my whole tag with one post #oh well #annotatedbib

0 notes

notsosilentsister · 6 years

Quote

I’ve spoken with countless women who have been attacked, mobbed, and shamed for doing their jobs and living their lives, and without exception, all of them prefer the outright violence. [...] It is less insidious, less traumatic, than being trashed by your colleagues and peers: by the people you expected to have your back before you knew to watch it. This is something that makes me reflect on my own experiences as a woman, and as a moderator on another community attempting to manage discussions about women. By far, the hardest thing to deal with, both personally and as a moderator, isn't the blatant gender-based insults or trolling. Those are easy to identify and how to deal with them is clear cut: delete, ignore, ban. The volume of them can get you down, but you know that they don't have anything meaningful to say. It's the attacks that can masquerade as stemming from legitimate criticism that get under my skin, and that are the hardest to deal with when moderating. Imagine you're a woman who instructs a college class and you make a mistake - something like telling your students the wrong due date for an assignment. You're also teaching a subject that you're really passionate about and sometimes you end up geeking out a little in class, sharing extra information that you think is particularly cool. At the end of the semester, you get a bunch of student reviews taking you to task for being disorganized and "showing off" what you know. This really gets you down. You try hard to be a good instructor, but you keep fucking it up. You can't get your shit together and you come across as a know-it-all. You decide to talk about this with your friends and you find out that some of the men make similar mistakes frequently and are much less organized than you. Some of them go off on tangents about things related to their expertise. Their students think they're fun and smart and the occasional slip isn't a big deal. None of them get this kind of feedback. They think it's bizarre that you have. I used the example of teaching, but the thing about being a woman is that this heightened scrutiny - that sometimes catches real flaws - is basically the cost of doing anything public. When someone posts a female researcher's work to the community I moderate, we have to immediately be on guard so we can delete trolls, people commenting on her looks, and so on. But what do we do about the fact that she just faces much more heightened scrutiny compared to her male peers? That her questions, her methods, and her results are interrogated that much more thoroughly, and taken to reflect on her legitimacy as a researcher? And it fucks with your confidence because you can't write it off as easily. Sometimes the criticism is valid. Sometimes the solution isn't to criticize you less, but to criticize men more. But the disproportionate amount of it, and how it is used to write you off entirely, ... There's no good way to deal with it. You can't say that the student review was illegitimate because it focused on your looks; you actually did make a mistake that affected your classroom. You can't say that potential flaws in a female researcher's work aren't up for discussion. The only way to deal with it is to be perfect, and to not make mistakes, and no one can fucking do that. It's really no wonder that so many girls and women have a crisis of self-confidence."

posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:30 AM on March 28 [33 favorites] The most important privilege is the margin of error people afford you. Nobody can accomplish anything without at least a little bit of it. It is a prerequisite for any sort of learning.

You probably won’t learn much from a mistake nobody points out. But there’s a difference between pointing out a mistake and using it as a reason to write someone off. So what if you made a mistake! Think of certain people you might know who are allowed to try again and again until they find their feet, whose flaws are indulged as charming excentricities, whose slightest accomplishments are supposed to make up for an embarassement of shady stuff.... It’s important to take in feedback, but it’s also important to keep it in perspective. Very often it’s not your fault, when biased people get hung up on your mistakes, so that they don’t have to acknowlege your accomplishments. Keeping that in mind doesn’t mean placing yourself above criticism.

#best of metafilter #privilege is your margin of error

3 notes · View notes

olympus-summit · 3 years

Text

Somebody Wake Me From This Nightmare || Izar || Post-Trial 6.1 || ATTN: People

There was so, so very much happening here. So very much he wanted to just ignore and move on from everything, and for a moment, everything seemed to be going smoothly! But of course, there was going to be opposition from certain individuals, and the more this trial occurs, the more he realizes just how messed up certain arguments are. Some people are demanding for far more than they have the right to, and it’s troubling.

“… Would you ask a defendant or a criminal to leave a court of law that is deciding their eventual fate? Would you let go of one you’re admonishing and keep them from learning their upcoming judgment? No, you wouldn’t. Elliott, Menai, Mina, Clarice, Calista, Iris and Montgomery are deserving to remain here and know what we, as a proper Council for one, choose to do with them. Do you not understand? This is how they’re demonstrating their repentance. Sure, they aren’t groveling at our feet and asking for forgiveness; they’re doing something far more meaningful: they’re letting us decide what becomes of them."

It was a mercy, as well as an execution, all at once. Just the thought that he could effortlessly walk over to Elliott and, should he wish to do so, snap his neck without consequences? No person should ever have that much control over another’s life.

Was that so difficult to understand? Was that truly so selfish? Though certain words do trigger certain responses from him, and though he only looks forward, still away from his throne and lying against one of the back walls, there’s conviction in his voice.

"I don’t have much to add, but I will say the following: I’ve no interest in forming part of this Council once Titan Administration has been usurped, and I agree with Mitsu and Shinobu. While this facility doubled as our personal misery chamber, the benefits it could provide to a broken world are immeasurable, just the relief aid it could provide is more than enough to keep it… Of course though, regarding the A.I. and the cloning, that is another topic that is likely too heavy a burden for us to discuss alone. Proper advisors, consultants, therapists and all manners of professionals are needed before a ruling can be reached. After all, think of it: if whole bodies could be cloned, then why not body parts? Organs? Cells? Anything that could benefit those whose bodies have unfortunately turned against them as well as the food this place provides. It’s a sanctuary for those in need, and yet… Titan Administration keeps it to themselves for their own seflish use."

Consequences be damned, as much as this ship will be the stuff of his nightmares, it comes with blessings that outweight their collective personal issues.

"It’s ironic that some of you claim that no one should toy and mess with someone else’s life the way these seven have, yet you’re all eager to do the same and judge them based on actions that while they can be justified, they cannot be excused… But that’s just something that cannot be either proven or disproven. Nemesis claimed that Montgomery or Elliott could’ve simply approached him and he’d have sided with them… Well, can you prove that? At the time, we were all under the control of Pandora, and if they are saying you couldn’t be convinced, then it likely is because at some point they’d have tried. Whether it was with us or with others? Matter of the fact is, all of us clones were essentially used to further Titan Administration’s goals. We can scream, yell and shift the blame all we want, but we must accept that ultimately, something this enormous needs to happen to destabilize us. Don’t forget, just because Elliott and his associates are the antagonists that we faced, it doesn’t make them villains."

After all, nothing they’ve done is truly insidious and villainous.

"I will likely be accused of speaking on behalf of others again, but frankly? I don’t care. I want you all to listen because while most of us cannot and will not forgive them for this, it doesn’t mean they are the scum of the Earth. If they truly were villains, they wouldn’t have surrendered and given us full control, they wouldn’t be discussing with us what to do next, they wouldn’t be helping us catch up to speed, and most importantly, they wouldn’t let us control their lives. But the moment some of you gain a smidge of power, you’re already wishing to abuse it the same way they did. This is why the Olympus Summit on its own has never, has not, and will never succeed. A small number of individuals who have risen to fame should never have this much sway in their hands."

He feels kind of silly now, having to explain this to the audience… He really was hoping they’d all be able to put their emotions aside, and listen and think logically… Some are, of course! But not everyone.

"The general populace thinks of us as gods, then fine. Let us dispel that notion then, I’m not just in favor of the information being leaked, but also in favor that Elliott himself decides what footage is to be selected.”

With his arms crossed, he nods in the direction of the one who once donned the codename of Prometheus.

“… And whatever footage he selects, we as a collective will decide whether it goes through or not, and we as a collective, democratically, will also elect what footage is cut, if any at all, and replaced with other recorded material, if any at all. No unreasonable demands from any single one person. If the majority votes the video is okay, then it goes through. If the majority decides the opposite, then it’s back to the editing room for Elliott. Furthermore, I suggest someone else associated with him to help him select footage in a non-biased way. All of our flaws must be exposed, and I truly mean all of us."

He doesn’t speak toward anyone in particular, but generically. For once since this nightmare began, the words are finally much more easily coming out of him.

"I, in agreement with Nemesis, Sabine and Shinobu, also vote for the plan of leaving them in isolation with little-to-no contact with the outside world rather than outright imprisonment, and while we are stuck at the ship, I agree with Shinobu. They should be offered the same commodities we were and kept under watch. Like them, I offer myself to stand guard and ensure no funky business is conducted by them. It’s the least I can do.”

Yay for house arrest!

“… Elliott is not our leader. That had been made clear forever ago, he is only offering to take responsibility for his actions, and that should speak loudly of how remorseful he is for his methods. However you also seem to not understand… They are victims of Titan Administration just as much as we are. None of us asked to be reborn and serve as different versions of our bases, and the same is true for them. Claire, Calista and Iris did not ask to be made into unwilling overseers to watch their fellow Council members perish on a yearly basis, and neither do I think Montgomery exactly enjoyed working on a program to psychologically torture individuals and make them feel as if they’d been gruesomely executed in real life after learning that he’s just another copy and his beloved has been gone for over a century. Similarly, Elliott and Menai never asked to become terrorists just to guarantee we’d oppose the Titan Administration. Without them, we’d all still be serving them dutifully without a speck of doubt in our minds and await to be discarded only months later. Things in here aren’t as black-and-white as some of you would like to think. It’s not that simple.”

(cw: perceived victim blaming)

Sighing, he finally turns to The Doctor and says one last thing.

“You haven’t learned anything, have you? You’re not as objective as you think. What you’re suggesting is the definition of exploitation. You are trying to lump Elliott into a personal ethics box and deeming him a villain when his actions are morally ambiguous. You’re demanding footage of me being used out of context to justify your own suffering. I watched the trial, and I watched how you, upon learning the truth, didn’t focus on the fact I avoided telling you my plans to ensure you weren’t targeted as an accessory of murder and attacked by the others for your silence, you glossed over how in my letter I stated I had an idea of where our ‘deceased’ pals were, a critical piece of information, and instead made the trial about you. A trial about my death, my suffering, about my plans, all about yourself; just because it was planned it does not mean I looked forward to my very slow, very painful death. I hid the truth from you once, and you labeled me an abusive, manipulative and toxic individual and constantly attacked me and even now continue to do so long after the events that took place and then demand footage of your own suffering be used in conjunction with out-of-context footage of me so you come out looking innocent. Our relationship wasn’t meant to be, and while I am sorry that I hurt you, I made that promise prior to learning of the existence of our compatriots stuck at the basement. Things change, Doctor. Accept that. I’m ready to move on, and you should as well. All Leland did was point out how quick you were to turn on me. I second Mina’s choice; Doctor should not be allowed to have her demands be met simply because she says so. If we’ll do this, we’ll do this as a collective effort between all of us.”

God, he had so much to say… Regardless.

“I vote to regain control of The Forge as well as to allow Mina, Montgomery and Nemesis to operate on it how they see fit and stick it to Titan Administration in any ways they can. Now, what to do with ourselves and the world..? That’s… A much more complex issue, and not one we can hope to answer anytime soon, I’m afraid. Not by just ourselves, at the very least… And also, call me Izar from here on. I think that’s much more fitting than 'Sol’ at this point.”

#chapter 6 #trial 6 #sol #submission

0 notes

outlyingthoughts · 4 years

Text

My mom was right, or a story on my privileges and microaggressions: Jul 20

Sometimes, your thoughts appear to meet at a cosmic intersection, everything coinciding and suddenly unlocking another level of understanding about your reality.

The start of Summer 2020 was a cosmic intersection for my reality. From populations around the world finally leading global protests against racism and police brutality, the escalation of Police-state-like situations in France and reading more books like « So you want to talk about race » by Ijeoma Oluo; everything confirmed an uncanny feeling I grew up to have an increased acuity for: my Mom was right, the world around me, despite how privileged I had seemed to be so far, was viciously racist and being blind to the racism I suffered from didn’t make it unreal.

Growing up in France with the myth of colorblindness, « because we are all one, indivisible and equal » in the eyes of the Republic and the Laïcité, makes it easy to deny the existence of institutionalized racism. French secularism, as the central pillar of our civic culture, provides a logic for our republic to conceal its racism under the soft blanket of a republican model of integration.

The French government officially rejects both censuses and data collection based on ethnic, religious or linguistic nature of groups. As such our national social cohesion is solely relying on the idealistic dream that from the moment that we have a French nationality, it grants us all an absolute equality in treatment, legally ensured by our all-mighty constitution.

Don’t get me wrong: I loved this principle that the state should be outlawed from seeing race and obliged by the law to treat us all equally. I loved attending my civic education classes and having a program that preached that we were all included because what mattered was that we were all French before anything else. I loved feeling like it was true thanks to my already existing privileges. I’ve had the luxury to believe in this illusion, all of it, until I had to navigate the « adult world » on my own, face racism with my own eyes and discovered how facts were radically different from our nicely designed civic education program.

My privileges allowed me to swim in sweet denial of the social reality of our country. But what happens if you're not French? What happens if you’re not perceived as French by the rising extreme right wing and populist political parties, by the people in the street, by a large portion of the voters in local and national elections ? What happens when the social reality doesn’t match those beautiful principles of equality and both the public discourse and authorities turn blind to systemic injustice ?

The problem is that not every French kid of color has the luxury to feel included and valued within the French society. When adults outside of your house are biased towards people that look like you, whether it be in the street, in fancy shops or even teachers at school; when politicians and people in the news are framing people from your ethnic or religious group or even from the neighborhood you come from as dangers, criminals or frauds of the system; how can you feel French before all, equal and included ?

Unfortunately, when sociologists and researchers are interested in studying this phenomenon, it is virtually impossible for them to do so since such data and measures are deemed inherently illegal in the government’s eyes. Even minorities asking for acknowledgment of systemic discrimination and inequalities through ethnic and/or religious demographic statistics are thus called out for being separatist and/or communitarist, all of this based on the adoption of the Law on « Informatique et liberté » in January 1978 which prevented public authorities from collecting data based on racial, ethnic or religious criteria.

Since then, even laws aiming at allowing the study of diversity, social integration and discrimination have been deemed anti-constitutional. As such, there is no way in France to account for socio-economic inequalities of ethnic and religious minorities, which -of course- makes it easier to deny their existence since they legally cannot be accounted for and studied.

This lack of acknowledgment does translate into French society and the way many French people think -regardless of their skin color and religion, even though more regularly among people of caucasian appearance-. Since I started growing more and more aware of the insidious racism around me and calling it out, I received backlash on many topics like cultural appropriation or reversed racism and a lot of denying of racial issues in our country.

In France, like in many Western countries with large non-white populations, many people refer to the existence of a so-called « reversed racism » when minorities start to call out systemic racism in our societies. So much that even some of my own relatives have thrown this term in my face when I started arguing against them on institutional racism in our country.

Sadly, in France the inability to account for discrimination, inequalities and even violence against minorities makes it virtually impossible to prove with numbers how rare what they refer to as « reversed racism » is compared to the urgency to address the too common racism against people of colors.

In the context of social justice, the goal is to highlight the institutional character of racism in our societies. Reversed racism in this context does not exist because white people in Western societies do not suffer from systemic inequalities and discrimination. Because last time I checked, Caucasians looking people in France do not risk institutionalized racial profiling and violence by the police or discrimination in employment because of « reversed racism ».

To have family members, who can witness how racism plays out in my everyday life and still believe in reversed racism comes to me as a denial of the experience of people of color when facing racism. It is like turning the cheek to the other side and say « yes you may suffer because of racism but please let’s not focus on your pain because I found a concept that fits me and all my unchecked privileges and allows me to deny the experience of a whole part of the population justifying it with a form of racism that does not impact my everyday life and doesn’t exist on a systemic scale »: News flash this is extremely insulting.

These forms of insidious white privileges in people’s discourse; to be able to be blind to racism and deny its existence because it does not affect your everyday life are microaggressions to people of color, denials of our pain and prevent a fruitful debate on how to solve the issue of institutionalized racism in our societies.

On my own privileges

My mom was right, in the tender years of my childhood I was privileged enough to virtually not see a difference between me and the other white kids (apart from the hairstyles I couldn’t do or that I was tanner than them regardless of the seasons).

My paternal grandfather was white and mayor of his town, I loved going to his workplace as much as I could, always showered in compliments and candies. Sometimes I would look up at the portrait of the current president hung in a big ceremonial room in the townhall and despite knowing that my parents didn’t approve of him, still I felt so at home within the bounds of our republic.

And while such privileges didn’t lead me to be « colorblind », it did make me blind to a large part of the discrimination I suffered from when I finally old enough to face it myself. I was convinced to be living in a post-racist society, convinced that only a minority of uneducated countryside freaks who had never seen a black person could be racist. I was convinced of all of this because I lived in a country with such beautiful laws and principles on equality and republican inclusion that it seemed unimaginable that the contrary could be real.

When my black mother was trying to make me notice micro-aggressions and subtly racist situations from our everyday life, I was denying everything (“it’s not racism mom, it’s -enter whatever excuse I could make up for them-). Sometimes I’d even make fun of her for being so imaginative and overly sensitive. Worse, I would go crazy with my democratic propaganda when she’d tell me she couldn’t be bothered to go vote because she did not feel included or represented in the elections. While I still condemn not voting because (forgetting the debate on whether it is rational or not) it is both a right and a privilege that isn’t respected by the autocratic leader in my maternal country, now I also understand my mom’s stand, feeling ignored and not included in political debates.

Today, I’m calling myself out for blindly believing in this integrative republican lie despite my own mother’s truth. When first generation but also second, third or even fourth generation immigrants are massively deemed as frauds of the system, it is logical that they have a reluctance to waste their time and resources on getting informed and involved in a system that pisses on them while still exploiting with joy their labor for the benefits of the national economy.

On Microaggressions

After reading a couple books and many essays on race like « So you want to talk about race », I felt discouraged as the wanna-be essayist I am. I didn't want to become yet another mixed essayist since we all apparently had the same stories on the way our bodies had been shamed, fetishized and sexualized whether it is our big butts, big hair, the same stories on exceptionalism and belittling compliments we receive, either making us exceptions of the group we identify as (« you’re pretty for a black girl ») or even categorizing our successes solely as a result of affirmative action (when I was applying to one of the top universities in Political Science in France, a friend of mine who was also a person of color told me that I was sure to get in because I was a great and lucky token black person).

Such discourses are so normalized and internalized that as I entered adulthood, I found myself sharing with my Caucasian father my deep fears of making it in life only because I was very often the only black or person of color in the circles and institutions I evolved within. Luckily, after a year of attending university abroad, I recovered confidence in my intelligence and abilities; but still had this fear when writing about my experience to not want to be seen as yet another angry black woman. But now the cosmic intersection struck me like a truck in my face: we all have the same story, not because we are whiny individuals and all the same but because everywhere people of color are suffering from the same discrimination and/or micro-aggressions.

What I had interpreted as my non-originality which would make me unable to succeed as a writer is just yet another proof of the systemic nature of racism and the discriminating ways of thinking and standards in our societies which we all suffer from.

Somehow, I found myself wishing at times that I had been an outcast like Ijeoma, but sadly I was socialized to match and please people’s expectations. When puberty and reality hit, I found a way to fold away myself and straighten the black out of me to fit the mold: whether it be in school, in my mostly white friend circles, in my behavior or appearance.

For the longest time from the start of my teenage years, I began internalizing all the ways societies and people told me that my “blackness” was ugly. How my hair was too big or deemed disgusting, how my fellow classmates saw me as a milking cow for starting puberty earlier than most girls. It came to a point where I genuinely believed that I could never be seen as beautiful if I let my natural bouncy curls and curvy shapes out. I was in denial of how much daily microaggressions had destroyed my self-esteem and standards of beauty.

Micro-aggressions are actions or remarks that are received as subtle or non-intentional forms of discrimination against minorities and/or marginalized group. An example of micro-aggression is someone telling you that you’ve never been arrested by the police because “you’re not that black for a black person” or that your hair is “impractical” and annoying because African hair requires more time and care to be maintained.

The problem with such remarks isn’t necessarily the intent or the way the person who made it thinks about the micro-aggression but rather the way it is received and hurts the receiver. Often times, when we do dare to stand up for ourselves against a micro-aggression, we are being told the same things I use to tell my own mother: that we are too sensitive or easily offended (especially if you’re from my generation I’m convinced you know the pleasure to hear older generations complain that we’re “a generation of offended sheep”) and only now I can understand how disrespectful and unsensitive my privileges made me towards my mom. Because I was so blinded by legal formalities and public discourse on the way society was supposed to be based on our laws, I was completely disregarding my own mother’s experience and struggle and some of you still do. That’s what unchecked privileges do.

But the violence of micro-aggressions generally isn’t rooted in the action or statement or its intent per say. Rather, most of the time, it’s in the way they are enshrined in wider systemic discrimination as repetitive and accumulated attacks on an individual across different moments and perpetrators. It turns an action which might appear inoffensive to the perpetrator (like touching someone’s hair) but will be taken as something extremely disrespectful to the receiver.

Growing up in France, hair on TV ads and the hair products on supermarket shelves were different than mine, the same way my friends at school could all have those flowy ponytails which I felt very sad my hair type didn’t allow I couldn’t have (until I begged my mom to relax my hair and she agreed when I was 7 because being a kid of a divorced couple she couldn’t take care of my hair for the whole month of summer at my father’s). But in any case, my relationship to my hair was the first instance where I felt part of a “minority” let’s say.

Getting into middle school and puberty, of course everybody gets criticized, shamed or made fun of for their difference: it’s part of teenage years. But when minor teenage bullying cross-cuts a subject which society marginalizes you for (as futile as hair and physical appearance can) and which throughout your life you’re going to get comments and/or random people’s opinions on all the time. All of this tends to weigh on one’s mind and if all the while, it is being deemed unattractive by the male gaze, then this innocent teenage bullying suddenly makes you, from a young age, internalize racism and hatred towards your own self, with the courtesy of mainstream western beauty standards.

(And yes, still today some men that I’ve frequented have dared to tell me they “didn’t mind my hair curly but they preferred my hair straight because they think I’m much prettier with” DID I ASK YOU FOR YOUR OPINION ON MY HAIR?)

I hope now it is pretty straightforward, why when my relatives tell me that my hair is impractical, I go bonkers. I’m simply sick of society, of men, of my teenage years, everything that made me internalize white beauty standards and told me that my natural appearance was not enough, not practical or not fit for them. And don’t even get me started on the ones that feel entitled enough to touch a part of my body without asking for my consent (here, only, my hair but still): Don’t touch my hair nor feel entitled to give me a judgement on my appearance.

Lastly, to put it all perspective, would you go around touching people’s ass and telling them: “well I don’t really like your butt, I'd rather you wear shapewear to change it” ?

Sources:

https://theconversation.com/how-french-law-makes-minorities-invisible-66723

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000026268247&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719

https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2019/03/19/la-difficile-utilisation-des-statistiques-ethniques-en-france_5438453_4355770.html

Oluo, I. (2018). So you want to talk about race. New York, NY : Seal Press

0 notes