#popular .. i feel so bad for the victims and seeing ppl on other socials that evacuated and dont know what they're going back home to next | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dearweirdme · 9 months

Note

I feel sad for Tae, this is obviously a stunt and I doubt he agreed to do it for clout and exposure, he didn't seem happy to do it and he is not feeding it in any way so that leave of some other options, I think it was more about providing a cover for tk, I don't think it's a coincidence that it happened just before both of their solo debut, jk's being international makes things more high scale too, so jk is also benefiting from this without dealing personally with the hard stuff, I won't argue that this has made tae even more popular but he's being attacked constantly, people making everything about him about this woman and prepared to make his hard work about her too, calling him a coward and making fun of him with 5k likes, always being on the news bc of "dating" it's also not necessarily a good thing, your fans calling you a liar and thinking that you are ball less when you are one of the bravest ppl out there mustn't be nice, ppl insulting even his family and this situation created a bunch of ppl obsessed with his privacy and personal life, like some army won't admit it on public but they have whole gcs for gossipping and he is the focus, and all bc yg and hybe are using him for this media circus, and this all before caring about his artistry and considering how Tae has been acting like him posting that wake up song tht has a clear message just after the Bruno Mars concerts when all the social media rockus was about tn, him coming out of the airport and doing a live immediately to show us that he is alone....yeah I doubt this doesn't bother him at least a bit, he is someone with a lot of integrity, what I'm saying is that it pains me to see the situation and it started to annoy me to see everyone benefit from it, jennie and YG, jennie is being victimized big time in twitter and every critisism done to her about stuff like her actions and lack of effort in concerts it's pin down to ppl 'jealousy' of her dating Tae, no critisism is valid now even the ones coming from her own fans and ppl are super defensive of her, even more than before, and jk too....this lifted some of the gay rumors just in time for his international debut ( I don't think this is coincidental) and I know this bc when Jennie dropped those pics so many comments from different accounts not even armys or shippers were ppl cheering bc 'tk is so not real' and ppl thinking in what should be just a typical gay kpop ship first thing everytime those rumors break tells me that deep down a lot of ppl thought or feared that there was some truth in tk and are relieved and happy that it's being 'debunked', I guess this is part the goal, a bit of protection for the both of them but yeah I don't like it that's Tae just dealing with all the bad stuff and jk only getting the benefits, at least that's how it looks bc obviously we don't how he feels emotionally but facts are facts and the one dealing with the worst of all is taehyung, lots of new ot6 accounts, ppl didn't leave jk bc of this rumor as much as tae, ppl aren't calling him liar and a pussy in mass scale, he doesn't have to see his face on the news bc of dating rumors, he is seeing it bc of the success of his music that hybe pushed ( which I think it's really deserved bc he has worked hard his whole life) but things don't look fair to me in regards of Tae,how fitting it was Tae saying that he would take the responsibility sometimes I wonder if that's the dynamic of their relationship.

Hi anon!

Yeah, this is the worst part of being in showbizz really. I agree that Tae probably isn’t unaffected by this, though I hope he has maintained a bit of distance from social media. The way it looks now, I think he agreed because it’s a fairly short stunt (only one walk for him, and the rest is mostly done by fandom) and it probably allows him more freedom in the long run. I feel his post with the Disney hoody is rather pointed. Reclaiming his true self a bit. I don’t think it’s been mainly to hide Taekook, but rather to make it seem that he (also) dates women. I’m quite curious to see how the launch of his album will go (in general, but also regarding this).

I don’t agree that Jk benefits from this without doing anything himself. Jk has been deemed ‘straight’ the last couple of weeks because of Seven. He didn’t need Tae to do Taennie, since to most of fandom and the general public Tae and him are just friends. They’ve successfully hidden that way for years now, and only now something like this is happening. I really suspect it’s because of Tae’s album, and because he wants to be able to be more himself in general. People are sadly enough more inclined to accept/ignore a hint of queerness when a man very publicly dates a woman. We’ll see soon I suppose, since his album is probably going to be released soon.

I think Tae and Jk are very connected. Jk’s tears when Tae’s grandmother died tells me that he is not immune to Tae’s hurt at all. I therefore think that Jk will also have hurt because of this Taennie thing. If not for himself it will have been for Tae. There’s no benefit in standing by while your partner is rumored/shipped with someone else. That hurts! Jk is also a very feeling, emotional person.. it took him quite some days to come on live again after the Paris stuff. You don’t come this far in a relationship (that is already complicated) by letting one person carry the brunt of it.

#taekook #taennope

6 notes · View notes

hvlloweens-a · 3 years

Text

a gentle reminder to avoid donating to the red cross and other profiteer organizations if you plan to help those affected by hurricane ida . . . find smaller/local charities, direct aid funds or organizations that have a “boots on the ground” approach. here’s a great starter list:

world central kitchen

second harvest food bank

the cajun navy ( call 504-517-6289 if you live in louisiana and need rescue )

covenant house

catholic charities of america ( text RELIEF to 797979 )

#hurricane ida #i'm sure more will appear 2moro and i'll update this when they do #and if anyone has any to add go ahead just PLEASE do not donate to the red cross they're so shady as a charity but unfortunately incredibly #popular .. i feel so bad for the victims and seeing ppl on other socials that evacuated and dont know what they're going back home to next #week is making me SO sick . also there are likely charities in UR state that will be doing drives/donations . < 3

1K notes · View notes

lais-a-ramos · 4 years

Text

On Lovecraft Country and the way the narrative presents queerness

"No masters or kings when the ritual begins

There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin

In the madness and soil of that sad earthly scene

Only then I am human

Only then I am clean"

Hozier, Take Me to Church

oh, boy...

i knew some of these deaths could happen in the finale, but i definetely wasn't prepared for any of this, wow.

i guess that, with the events of the finale, including atticus' death, there really is no point in getting the show renewed for a season 2, as as i hoped and wished before, because all of the conflicts that were set up were resolved. i mean, there's always the possibility of using time-travel to do a retcon and bring all the dead characters back, or, at least, two of the protagonists and the villain, but, maybe it would take too many alterations in the narrative, because it seems like the whole thing was planned for a mini-series.

so, now, all we have left is to do a breakdown of what worked and what didn't in lovecraft country's limited series run.

i think that, overall, the message of black ppl taking back the power of ancestry that was stripped from them by white supremacy and structural racism was well-done, and the symbolism was very well-crafted in the final takedown of the season's main villain, which was a representation of how the racism based on indifference born out of white privilege is almost as bad as the racism based on pure hate and despise, which is a valid message, considering the former is a bystander to the abuses and rise to power of the latter.

although i still find the timing was poorly chosen because, well, as of now, all over the world, it's not white ppl who dub themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and claim themselves to not be racist but refuse to act anti-racist that present an actual threat to our human rights, but literal, actual fascists and neo nazis...there are bigger fish to fry now...

but i digress...

on the final score, i guess that when it comes to queer/LGBTQ+ representation, the show fell actually felt real short for a product that crafted so well the race issues, proving that there is still a lot to go before we get to see intersecting identities being portrayed in media the same compex way they exist in the real world.

no, lovecraft country is not guilty of queerbaiting, unlike some of the same ppl in fandom that are the firsts to either erase the half of a couple that is a BIPOC or to deny a canon cis het biracial ship to hype up a fanon white wlw ship and other problematic stuff plenty of times in LGBTQ+ fandom spaces might say.

but that doesn't mean that the treatment of LGBTQ+ issues was satisfying or can be considered good rep, and it actually repeats some of the same tired tropes about queerness and blackness.

while we can say that the show did a relatively good job with montrose as an individual, the same can't be said of the other characters and the final messages.

like, for example, introducing a trans/non-binary indigenous, the Arawak two-spirt Yahima, only to kill them on the next episode was insensitive, to say the least.

while it's true that misha green apologized for the mistake, and said she and the writers tried to make a point that even oppressed groups are capable of oppression, the final score was that a trans/non-binary character was introduced as a plot-device and brutally murdered before having even a chance to properly develop.

in other words, used as a prop.

in a world in which trans ppl are brutally murdered at alarming rates, and most of the victims are BIPOC trans ppl, that is something that we can't let it slide just because the general message of the show was good for cis het black ppl.

the same can be said on the treatment of sammy in the narrative.

while it's true that montrose being aggressive and acting the way he did, pushing ppl he cared about away and shunning every chance of vulnerability due to internalized homophobia, toxic masculinity and misogyny, as this very interesting critique by amani marie hamed of nerdist pointed out, his characterization nonetheless falls into the same old stereotype in american culture of accusing black ppl of falling behind when it comes to queer acceptance and associating black masculinity with homophobia.

also, the author of the article says it better, but, overall, sammy's existence ends up being just another plot device, serving to say to the audience that the producers and writers know that queer ppl existed in the 50's, but, at the same time, repeating some of the same tropes as usual, like associating being queer with being clandestine and deviant instead of showing it as a natural thing that was perceived as deviant at the time, as we can see by that scene of sammy having a sexual encounter in the alley behind his bar.

the author even mentions that queer ppl overall had houses, and most of the encounters actually happened there, and that scene reinforces the idea that queerness is inherently animalistic.

the article also points out how sammy is mostly there just to be shutted out, first by montrose and latter even atticus, and, ends up being another prop to lift montrose to deuteragonist status, being rejected and abused by montrose solely to highlight tic's father journey with his personal issues that apparently he simply wrapped up in a span of 2 episodes.

the fact that sammy was a also a more feminine gay man, even participating in ball culture as a drag queen, and yet most of his appearences involved him being degraded or shut out or overall mistreated by montrose, even tic, and that scene in which atticus forgives montrose after he revealed he never acted on his homosexuality and cheated on tic's mom, even though it's implied she did cheat on him with his brother george, just reinforces the idea it's ok for black and brown men to be gay, as long as they are not THAT GAY™️.

the introduction of thomas in episode 1x09 only to be murdered in the riots is another example of how queerness seem to come with a price in this show if you act on it.

once again, a gay character was introduced in the narrative to further montrose's pain and trauma.

and his introduction was absolutely not necessary, because being a survivor of a massacre like the tulsa riots and a survivor of parental physical abuse is already was already enough for making tic and the audience begin to emphatize with montrose's pain, there was no need to kill another queer character just for that.

not to say we should agree with everything the nerdist article says, of course.

at times, it felt like the author was saying that addressing these issues in the black community is a problem on itself, and that is definetely not the solution.

but, when we consider the setting of a limited series with a plot-driven approach to the scripts, the way the topic is addressed ends up being superficial and rushed, and what could have been a delicate approach to a complicated man discovering his sexuality if the show was an on-going series, ends up being just a narrative built to put montrose in the spotlight in an attempt of getting a few emmy nominations for outstanding performances, and that's about it.

now, what really serves to cement the LGBTQ+/queer representation in lovecrat country as a disservice is the treatment of ruby, christina and their relationship.

i did a few metas explaining christina's and ruby's characterizations, including one i posted before the finale started explaining why ruby was so important to queer black and feminine-aligned nbs being a dark-skinned fat black queer woman discovering her sexuality and figuring out there was more to life than the social roles that were pushed into her, and how the parallels between her and christina, two different women separated by race and class but with the common feeling of being interrupted by social restraints that binded them, were a way for a character like ruby to be treated by the narrative the same way white women get to be treated in fantasy stories, as someone worthy of being courted and romanced as a light-skinned and thin black woman like her sister leti.

but with that finale, and the way the whole thing played out, with not only christina and ruby dead, but also with christina killing ruby, felt, ironically, like the very same trope that's been the norm for queer characters for a long time.

if we consider the tropes of the genre the show and the source material draw inspiration from, pulp fiction magazines, a medium that was very popular until the rise of the cinema and TV in the 50's and 60's that also served as an inspiration for them, then we know that in this medium some of the harmful tropes about queerness that exist until this day were particularly prevalent, including that of the queercoded villains.

to talk about this, i'm going to refer to this amazing article by tricia ennis on the history of queercoding for syfy wire.

first, a definition:

"queer coding, much as the name suggests, refers to a process by which characters in a piece of fictional media seem — or code — queer. this is usually determined by a series of characteristics that are traditionally associated with queerness, such as more effeminate presentations by male characters or more masculine ones from female characters. these characters seem somehow less than straight, and so we associate those characters with queerness — even if their sexual orientation is never a part of their story."

between the hays code in cinema going from 1934 to 1968, the comics code authority in the comics industry from 1954 to the early 21st century (with dc comics and archie comics being the last to break with it in 2011, mind you), the code of practices for television broadcasting from 1952 to 1983 and its predecessor for radio NAB code of ethics, the authors all over mass media couldn't approach the topic of queerness and portray openly and proud queer characters under the risk of being persecuted by the censors, and so, begin to hide queer chracters under the disguise of subtext.

and given the content creators couldn't show any form of positive queer/LGBTQ+ representation under the risk of being punished by the censors, the alternative they found was to portray the queer characters as the villains or antagonists or degenerates, and punish them with death.

the syfy wire article says it better than i ever could:

"even dangerous LGBTQ tropes rose out of this time period, as the depictions of pulp noir femme fatales and other deadly women rose in popularity. these women were usually written as promiscuous and sexually devious, both with men and sometimes with women. they were also evil and usually met their end as a result of their sins. While depictions of LGBTQ characters were frowned upon, depictions of them in this specifically negative light were not. you were not endorsing an “alternative lifestyle” if your gay characters always met an untimely demise. Instead, they were merely paying for their poor choices. this trope would eventually give way to what we now refer to as 'Bury Your Gays.' "

and the thing is, all those censorship laws are over by now, but the tropes/clichés that arised on that era are still prevalent in pop culture 'till this day, consumed by the audiences and reproduced by content creators, in the industry or in fan spaces, whether they are aware of said trope/clichés or not.

now, that is where ruby, christina and their affair on the show enter.

to explain how problematic and harmful the way these characters have been portrayed is, and what kind of message it sends about black queerness, i first have to explain christina's function on the story.

christina, as a character, was basically the texbook pulp noir femme-fatale, checking most of the boxes of the tv tropes description of the trope, from the "red equals evil and sin" imagery to being a wild card, that character who changes sides according to their own desires and individualistic goals.

in her specific case, helping the white supremacists and the black heroes alike in her pursue for unlimited power to protect herself from the oppression that comes with being a white woman, particularly a wealthy one, in which the very same presumption of innocence that gives them privilege over BIPOC is used to infantilize them and strip them from their agency, putting their bodies and choices under the tutelage of cis het white men.

so, her function on the show was basically to manipulate the characters on the two sides alike.

and that is where the problems in queer representation come in, because, to manipulate them, she acts as a sensual seductress.

and what does the script uses to highlight that this is a character willing to go to the most immoral places to achieve her goals? it makes christina a sexually fluid and gender fluid character.

that is basically playing a move straight from the hays code era.

not only does the show plays christina's sexual and gender fluidity as her being "freaky" and a proof of her deviant nature, but it makes her seduction of ruby as a central part of the scheme that positions her as the main villain of the show.

this portrayal of christina as a textbook femme-fatale with a touch of white feminism is already very problematic on its own, especially when we consider her death and how brutal it was, because, yes, while it's true she is privileged because she is white and wealthy, she is still a woman and a queer one at that, and giving her the same traditional treatment for femme-fatales in pulp fiction ends up reinforcing harmful stereotypes about gender and sexuality.

but, when we consider what it means for ruby as a character, it gets WAY worse.

ruby is a character that's been shown to feel very frustrated about the ways in which societal structures of power interfere in her life, not only on a professional level, but even on a personal level as well, making her feel "interrupted".

dealing with the same issues that all black women and feminine-aligned nbs who don't fit into the eurocentric standards of femininity and of beauty do, and not matching the criteria for being hypersexualized by society as the black women considered conventionally pretty -- with thin bodies like the white women or hourglass body frames, being light-skinned and so on --, ruby has her humanity stripped from her because everyone expects her to be stronger than it's humanly possible.

everyone seems to expect something of her at home, her younger sister took advantage of her money for years, and not only all of her goals in the professional realm seem to be frustrated by social structures of oppression, but even her relationship goals as well, given that most of the men that she gets involved with, whether they are black or white, seem to believe they have the right to abandon her and treat her like trash because she doesn't feel a thing and is "strong" enough.

ruby feels frustrated and tired, and she has every single right to do so, because, as what happens to most black women and feminine-aligned nbs, she is disrespected and disregarded by everyone, white and black alike.

so, when christina comes in with an offer of improving ruby's life with magic, of course she takes the opportunity.

and it seemed like the show was willing to deal with the moral complexities of christina's shapeshifting potion and validating ruby's feelings, or at least, sort of validating.

but, by killing her at the end, it just played out as if ruby's feelings meant she was merely a traitor to the race, and not a woman who was tired of feeling frustrated with all of these impossible obstacles society sets for black women and feminine-aligned nbs, especially dark-skinned and fat ones like her, and justified in her anger and frustration.

she did everything right and accomplished nothing, and, when she finally decided to rebel and focus on herself for a change, she met her demise.

but that is just the tip of iceberg, really.

what makes this situation with ruby so frustrating is the fact that, when the show presented christina's queerness as another sign she was "on the wrong side of the tracks" and a villian that should be defeated by the black heroes, which consist in a family, the narrative is implying that a person has to choose between their queerness, on one side, and their blackness and community on the other.

of course, one might argue that the fact montrose was turned into a gay man himself in the adaptation prevents this from happening. but, when we consider montrose was forgiven by tic only after reinforcing he never did cheated on dora and acted on his queerness and lived his gayness, when he really had every single right to do so, especially because it's implied dora slept with his brother george and the three of them knew she was just montrose's beard, then we have the message that it's ok to be queer as long as you don't act on your queerness at all.

there is a part in the review for nerdist that i mentioned above, in which the author says that one of the book's best qualities was that "the source material also illustrates the importance of family and community ties between Black protagonists", and that the TV show ruins it when it "introduces abuse, alcoholism, and family dysfunction, and strips Black characters of their own magic."

that is a part of the article, published in october 14 2020, that now no longer makes sense after the finale, because that message is there.

but, the actual problem is that the ideas of family and community shouldn't be taken for granted bc they are always under political dispute, and are oftenly used to reinforce backward messages when it comes to gender and sexuality, serving as a tool for the control of the bodies and authonomy of ppl of various marginalized groups and intersecctions, including women, BIPOC and queer ppl alike.

while these things are not inherently good or bad, and they are also part of the culture and identity for plenty of BIPOC ethnical identities, the concepts of family and community are usually weaponized by conservatives and used to justify things like queerphobia and the restrictions over reproductive rights.

queer ppl in all walks of life and skin colors all over the world have to deal with plenty of conflicts about coming out because, by deciding to live their own truth, they can never know for sure whether coming out will put them at odds with their families and community until they dare to do so.

so, ruby's dillemma for not knowing what to choose, her family or a life with christina, plays out as the type of experience queer ppl have to deal on a daily basis, and when we consider the intersection with race/ethnicity, it gets even more cruel because our gender identities and sexual/romantic/aesthetic orientations, that are natural parts of us, make us being invisibilized and silenced in our own cultures and feel like we have to give up on our own communities in order to be able to live our queerness.

there are few things more gut-wrenching than that feeling of fear that you might be disowned by your family and relatives and your community -- whether is it a neighbourhood, a village, a small town etc -- because a part of yourself is considered at odds with your heritage.

and when we consider all the christian imagery in the show, the final result is a really troubling one.

while it's true that being christian and believing in god doesn't authomatically makes anyone a bigot (i actually still retain some of the beliefs i was raised into as a catholic latin-american), it's also true that now, more than ever, we can't ignore science, including history.

the entire way in which they referred to magic as a devil's work was very troubling and evocates the same discriminative rethoric that white european colonizers used to justify the destruction of the ancient old religions and beliefs of BIPOC in their own homeland, the ancient culture of our ancestors, and also the oppression of peasant women in europe.

while we can't generalize, given each culture had its own particularities, there's an agreement in the scientific community that, overall, the cultures of the first nations and indigenous folks from the american continent, the african continent, the asian continent and oceania/pacific islands were far more accepting of different manifestations of queerness.

that means that queerphobia was part of the colonial project, once the traditional family values of christianity were used as a tool for the white colonizers to regulate the bodies and sexuality of the colonized and keep them under control.

and that is why the association of these ideals of family and community as inherent to blackness ends up being problematic, because we can't discuss racism without discussing colonization, and we can't discuss colonization without considering the ways in which queerphobia and religion were used as tools of colonial oppression.

the worst part is that, when it comes to ruby, the producers and writers really didn't need to do kill her at all.

and while the show did right in not showing how christina killed ruby, sparing the audience from watching another black body being brutalized, it's also true they didn't have to kill the character to get her out of the way from the final confrontation between christina and tic's family.

they literally went and changed her background from her book counterpart and made the woman a musician, and a blueswoman at that.

all they needed was to have her share a goodbye scene with christina the same way she had with leti, saying that she wanted to be with christina but couldn't fight her family and friends like that, grab a copy from the safe travel negro guide and set off in a bus to travel all over the U.S., singing very sad blues songs about falling in love with a white devil once.

that's all the producers and writers needed, to use the "sent in a bus" trope.

but the choice was to portray ruby as a character facing the consequences of following her desires , which ends up feeling like a punishment for a dark-skinned and fat queer black woman for daring to question the position society has placed her because of who she is.

this is in no way an attempt to "cancel" the producers or the writers, because a) their work is still important as a team of mostly black creators and b) canceling doesn't seem to have significant consequences, and seems to lead only to more social media wars than anything else.

but now that it finally seems diversity is getting more space in media, this type of discussion gets more important.

there is a slow increase on more representation of queer/LGBTQ+ characters in media and more productions involving queer/LGBTQ+ creatives, but, most of the time, the characters and are white, or, when there are biracial couples, the characters of color are just token minorities, and the same happens with the creatives involved in the production.

there is a slow increase in BIPOC characters representation in media and more productions involving BIPOC as creatives, but, most of the time, the characters are cis heterosexual, and the same happens with the creatives involved in the production.

but, for pop culture and media to be truly diverse, there has to be more space for the narratives of ppl that exist and belong to the two groups to raise our voices and be heard, whether is it in the entertainment industry, society at large or even in fandom spaces.

because she shouldn't be forced to pick between one identity over the other.

our existences shouldn't be interrupted just because society doesn't know how to deal with them.

and if that make us sinners, then so be it.

#lovecraft country #ruby baptiste #christina braithwhite #ruby x christina #rubtina #rutina #montrose freeman #lgbtqiap+#lgbtq representation #queer representation #poc representation #woc representation #moc representation #black women representation #representation in media #representation in fiction #tv representation #it's ok for non-BIPOC queer folks to reblog #and it's ok for non-queer BIPOC folks to reblog

83 notes · View notes

freedom-of-fanfic · 5 years

Note

one of the most popular argument from fandom police is that exposure oneself to problematic content will make you desensitized to atrocities and stop fighting against them when facing them irl. It baffled me. The argument doesn't only imply ppl can't think for themselves, it also says that we will only act on initial emotional impulses-disgust when seeing irl incest, for example - and nothing else, not logical thoughts, the law, their sense of duty, their empathy to the victims...

very true! but I think it makes sense when considered from a reactionary viewpoint.

why fandom policers seem to believe desensitization to horrible things prevents activism

in aggregate, communities that measure fandom content by purity culture standards & radfem/exclusionist-flavored ‘LGBT’ activism & try to control said fandom content by harassment, cyberbullying, & slander tend to behave in reactionary ways. that is: the majority of their actions are based on emotional responses to things rather than critical analysis & consideration.

the problem with emotions is: they’re not controllable enough nor long-lived enough to sustain long-term action.

So it makes sense that fandom policers fear anyone losing a sense of disgust/anger will lead to inaction when one considers that:

(a) the entire ‘anti’ movement is predicated on

believing they are objectively right/righteous (& everyone else is objectively wrong/evil); and

projecting their own behavior, feelings, and beliefs on everyone else*.

they don’t value or respect opposing worldviews, which they see as less moral than their own.

(b) fandom policers depend on their sense of disgust / revulsion to guide them regarding whether fictional content is ‘bad’ or not. Without that feeling, their ‘system’ of determining what is good or bad is too open to interpretation to be of much use.

(c) web 2.0/post-9-11 fear culture/24-7 news coverage has normalized outrage cycles & emotional reactions appearing to guide activism, i.e.

somebody well-known does something outraging & horrible;

news outlets saturate the media space w/coverage;

viral sharing social media is saturated with outraged reactions & calls for counteraction (which news outlets also cover ad nauseam);

activists who work in the field capitalize on the attention to solicit donations & help w/their cause. but before long--!

somebody well-known does something outraging & horrible (but totally different from the previous horrible thing);

news outlets drop the previous outrageous & horrible thing & saturate the media space w/coverage of the latest horrible thing;

etc etc, for eternity.

This discourages widespread awareness of long-term, non-outrage-induced activist efforts that continue after the news outlets have moved on, & keeps a constant cycle of new, MOST IMPORTANT~! causes that need your rage-induced attention & reaction.

(d) if an intense, negative emotional reaction to a thing is the only reason a person takes action against said thing, it’s true that they will only keep taking action against the thing while they still feel that way. maintaining the desire to act after desensitization sinks in will require either other feelings or other reasons for commitment to the cause to be invoked.

and finally:

(e) Inaction having been characterized as ‘just as bad as supporting [evil]’ by misapplying the truism that inaction helps perpetuate the status quo. (not all dilemmas/debates are a matter of right vs wrong, good vs evil, or tptb vs the oppressed, & it’s okay to not take action or have an opinion. feelings on ships/fanworks in fandom is one of these things, imho.)

so:

if a person polices fandom out of a kneejerk reaction of disgust & outrage towards a ship or fanwork, then their emotional reaction is what ensures they take action and maintaining that feeling of disgust&outrage is necessary to keep taking action.

if they don’t feel disgusted, they might lose interest in stopping it from existing - and inaction against evil is just as bad as doing evil.

Furthermore: because they do not credit other worldviews as existing/being valid, they believe - and are validated by news/social media outrage cycles in believing - that strongly negative, outraged emotional reactions to things motivates everyone else to take action just as it motivates themself.

so reactionaries wonder: if you get used to seeing something horrible & stop feeling upset/disgusted by it, how are you going to keep caring about fighting it? they wouldn’t keep caring after the emotional reaction has faded ... so how is it possible for you to do so?

and to be fair: not all fandom policers are purely reactionary - not by a long shot. and there’s nothing wrong with being motivated to act out of emotional reactions to things, either - even if you only donate to whatever vetted activist is at the top of your news feed because of the outrage cycle subject of the day, you’re still donating!

but the reality is: to fight something horrible, you have to understand it - even if it’s disgusting & enraging. & that means getting past how horrible it is to look it in the metaphorical face. if we didn’t have activists desensitizing themselves to horrible things so they can do something about them without destroying themselves or blundering horribly, most activist efforts would do more harm than good.

(and turning up their collective noses at anyone who doesn’t react with disgust to everything that upsets them is one reason why fandom policing efforts - even genuine ones - to ‘clean up fandom’ and ‘protect kids’ always miss their mark so hard.)

(*fandom policers frequently think the only reason other people do wrong/evil is because they’ve actively decided to be wrong/evil, or were tricked into it by other wrongdoers/evildoers.)

#weep woop its the fandom police #disgust as morality #fandom is not activism #but people sure are confused about that #why antis do the thing #web 2.0 is the worst thing to happen to fandom #antis are just leftist authoritarians #Anonymous

315 notes · View notes

seenashwrite · 6 years

Text

See you thought it was fun, and now I’ve gone and done some pondering #prayers for Sal

salvachester replied to your post “Hello, new Nashooligans!”

but NASH, it's fun to see you lecture when you are actually right (srsly, what part of "don't steal from others, Stealing IS BAD" ppl don't get??)

@salvachester I’ve actually given this some thought, Sal, and - other than it not being addressed formally by parents and/or in school - my guess is it’s the knee-jerk thought process of “Well if it’s not for sale, it must be free.”

This was likely a rhetorical comment, but it’s Monday and I’m avoiding Monday adulting, so here we are. Feel free to ignore. Or hey, waste time with me, it can be a group activity.

And I don’t know if the opposite - being almost wary of stuff that’s not got clear parentage - is my knee-jerk due to having gone to school for a thousand years (citations! proper biblio! what does the literature say! footnotes! robust sources! gaaaah!), or if it has to do with age. I already had one foot into adulthood when social media exploded. I’m sure I’ve failed in the past, but now-a-days, I try not to pass along things that appear to have been slapped on here/the Twits without being “shared” as appropriately as possible.

Which, I tell you, the way I was “raised” in terms of leadership style/management style is to train your brain - in a situation where a subordinate has made a mistake - not to immediately blame them, but to first consider were they in any way set up for failure? Meaning: was this related to a systems issue/supply issue/staff support issue/etc. 100% incompetence and/or willful malice should be the conclusion when all else is eliminated.

So most of these sites - the ones with broader focus than sharing quick thoughts or life updates (like, Twitter’s primary function wasn’t about sharing artwork, Facebook’s jam was supposed to be non-business networking, I know things evolve, but you get my point) - in particular play a big part in this, too. Specifically for the lack of share buttons with every popular media site listed, which should then alert the creator to the publishing of their thing on an outside site. It’s nigh impossible to track, just for plain ol’ metrics, but also because if I were able to see an uptick on Instagram, I’ll know to keep an eye out for folks who do the ol’ screencap and pass-a-long thing.

I’ve thought about locking this blog down to the “nth” degree possible (it’s currently viewable by anyone), and making a side blog for CASPN that’s public. I know that won’t prevent 100%, but maybe it’ll shave off the top.

I also am really convicted regarding naming names, if a thief (or accidental re-posters who can turn themselves into thieves) has been informed and given a link to follow and asked to kindly delete their post, then does not do it. I give them about a week, depending on if it’s evident they post multiple times a day, and then if not? I think the given fandom should be told.

But.

That garbage overtook my blog and drew out a handful of cranky folks who were apparently having a bad day and needed to process it aloud and it fell at the NashHole Inc doorstep (and, hey - they lucked out, they could’ve done it to a dragon slayer instead of someone who decided a loooong time ago to go the educational windbag route with those types of folks), and it really wasn’t my intent. I *am* thankful that nobody piled on that kid, that people did as I asked and just reported the post/spoke bluntly but not rage-y in messages, but lord have mercy, I wish I could shut it down and let folks know this particular one is over, and there’s no need for anyone to waste their time going over there, or clog up their blog.

So here’s my thought: Should there be a blog that’s focused on SPN thievery, story plagiarists, etc., exclusively? Kinda like how Canon SPN gifs is just.... well, canon SPN gifs. And it’d have a whole slew of mods who’ve been around forever, who live in a variety of continents/countries/time zones so that the mailbox 24hr coverage so to speak, and ideally a good chunk of whom have had things stolen from them. And it would have a process similar to what I describe: the request to take down; some standard time period with flexibility based on whatever circumstances (say, if they’ve noted somewhere that they’re on a hiatus); if that time period passes with no response, or they block the rightful owner or behave rudely, then comes the report to the site in question followed by the “report to the fandom” via this blog in an agreed-upon simply formatted post; tag the post with the thief’s name so that people can come back and search for updates; and of course, update the fam along the way.

I figure that way people can follow or subscribe for alerts, and then reblog at their discretion, or could make a tiny post of their own with a link back to a certain post at the theft blog being like “Y’all need to look at this post if you’re a writer, the SPN Thief Alert blog found a Wattpad user with a ton of stolen stories”.

Anyway. Hmmmmm..... Okay, sorry my brain droppings fell on you, you lucky victim! MWAH!

#Nash Replies #Nash Ponders #on thieves and plagiarism and such #and it fell on poor ol'#salvachester #Queueby Dooby Doo #Dad's on a blog post and #he hasn't been queued in a few days

3 notes · View notes

dingleautomotives · 7 years

Note

rebecca isn't a weak woman (whatever that means), she is a weak character, lacking agency and accountability, being reduced to a Saint Victim when she is not (which i think in turns makes some ppl want to blame her all the more), 95% of her character is plot device and springboarding other characters/storylines. I 100% agree with everything you said in your post, but the construction of her character and and the writing has been genuinely upsetting and offensive, on top of being annoying 1/2

it is often manipulative writing that ends up not even serving her character because they've not let her exist, changing her personality whenever it's needed, reducing her to a walking prop that people can't really invest in or truly care about, because of how fleeting and vapid she is. unfortunately u r right ppl engage in ridiculous fake social issue call outs and use them to justify their dislike of her and make thmselves feel better when there r legitimate pbs surrounding her character 2/2

fair. i don’t necessarily agree with all of this but i get where u r coming from and you make a lot of good points. and i almost didn’t rebut at all because i’m just kinda like. yeah. fair.

but i’m in a discourse mood so let’s dig in haha

i guess i don’t personally find the construction of her character upsetting/offensive because i really don’t expect any better from emmerdale than shitty, plot-driven characterization. i think rebecca has been under more of a microscope because of her involvement with a very popular couple and therefore the weaknesses in her characterization are brought to light and people are angry about them because the writers are a) taking the story in a direction fans dislike and b) justifying that direction using weak storytelling/characterization as the basis for that direction.

but... it doesn’t really strike me as any different than any other shitty, plot-driven, poorly characterized emmerdale storyline. of which there have been many in the past, and there will be many in the future.

like. is it a little bit worrisome that emmerdale is probably using a female character as a prop to create a baby? i mean sure, i get that. but soaps use people as props all the time. the mother of jimmy’s son carl was certainly a prop. holly barton was brought in just to split up coira and send moira on a new path. nell is undoubtedly a prop for jai’s character development. and i mean yeah, it’s shitty writing and you can even make a pretty good argument that it’s sexist writing, but it’s not something i see as unique to rebecca.

let’s also not negate the relationships that rebecca has with her family, and that she’s building with other villagers. rebecca has made more friends in emmerdale in 8 months than chrissie has made in several years and that to me gives her some depth, versatility and makes her MORE than just a supporting character in the robron drama (even though that’s obviously been her most important role)

so it’s not that i don’t think people are right when they say some of this writing has been messy.. i just haven’t had (that many) problems with rebecca’s writing compared to the general emmerdale standard. since rebecca entered the show i have only had 1 or 2 moments where i side-eyed my tv and went ‘huh?’ (like i will admit i was kind of shocked when rebecca approached robert in the cafe last week. but even that can be explained. and the show DID explain that it was driven by chrissie’s quest for her biodad and rebecca thinking about her child and what relationship it will have with robert)

so i don’t think it’s necessarily A FACT™ that the writing for her has been terrible and inconsistent and lacked coherent characterization. most of it has worked for me (as well as any emmerdale characterization ever works lmao).

i think a lot of it is about our individual willingness to roll with a character or give them the benefit of the doubt - which often has a lot to do with whether we like or dislike a storyline, and whether we like or dislike a character.

(for instance, i’ve never really cared about liv/aaron and so, to me, every aspect of that relationship feels like plotty, forced, disingenuous, lazy writing. but deep down in my heart i suspect that that’s just because it’s a relationship i wish didn’t exist and therefore i hold it to a much higher standard because i’m constantly looking for evidence that it should not exist)

(i also hated carly/marlon and once again, thought it was forced weird shitty characterization/writing! but that’s because laurel/marlon are a major otp for me so i just wasn’t willing to #buy into carlon at all)

i’m not saying that your points are invalid. i’m just saying... at a certain point i think these ideas of “good” or “bad” characterization/storytelling/writing are all fairly subjective and driven by what we as individuals want from the show.

#rambles #long post #also thank you for being nice anon!#it made this an enjoyable thing to respond to #instead of making me feel sad or anxious or angry #i was just like damn that was a good response #anon #asks

6 notes · View notes

thecoppercow · 7 years

Text

Tbh - if you uncritically buy into that Soroush fucker’s post, you aren’t a feminist, you’re a propagandist.

See, tumblr notes isn’t the measure of anything but a lot of youse seem to think it is, so it’s worth comparing three cases (there are more, but off the top of my head) - the most popular news post on a gay teenager being tortured into making a confession, or intimidated into testifying against his boyfriend (who was from a less influential family - when the penalty is death obviously his family encouraged him to save himself) and then that boy, Hassan Afshar, aged just 19, being hung for being gay (and to this day, smeared with falsehoods), struggles to break 500. And that’s just from dedicated justice/feminist blogs/blogs that exclusively take an interest in LGBT+ rights in the ME.

The case of Atefeh Rajabi Sahaaleh was one of the first I ever read, and it haunted me. Not a peep on here though, I can’t remember more than a handful of social justice bloggers even bothering. A 16 yr old girl, (who allegedly had bipolar disorder), who was abused from 14 by various older ppl, was given 100 lashes by the Morality Police and locked up for ‘having sex’ with older men, at least three times. (The men denied it, and were let go.) During these three imprisonments, the police raped her and essentially toyed with her, mental illness and lack of support making her an easy victim. The fourth time, she was accused of “having sex” with an unmarried man (but given that the man was a 51 y.o “pillar of the community” type it is generally agreed that it was likely sexual abuse, as she claimed in court). She was not provided with a lawyer, her father was not informed of what was happening to her, she was tortured in jail, and again raped by the guards, leading to so much pain she often had to hobble around the jail. When Atefeh realised she was losing this case, she snapped, screamed out in court - railed against the injustice, and ripped off her hijab and shoes and flung them in anger and fear. This pissed off the religious judge, Haji Rezai, who got so mad he travelled to Tehran personally to convince the mullahs of the Supreme Court to uphold the death sentence, and ‘fast-tracked’ the appeal case through the courts himself. She was 16, but the Supreme Court was told that she was 22. Her family was not told that she was about to be executed. Judge Haji Rezai was so pissed off that he allegedly personally placed the noose round Atefeh’s neck before she was hoisted on a crane to her death, telling her “This will teach you to disobey!” She was left hanging for 45 minutes. He later boasted that she had been “taught a lesson” for her “sharp tongue”. You can argue that this is one extreme case, but it happens again, and again, and again - Maryam Ayoubi, Sakineh Ashtiani… these are the “big name” cases that get reported in the press. Day by day there are a thousand cases of misogyny and corruption and abuse of women by the judicial system, by the morality police, in jail, that go unnoticed.

I don’t even have to remind you of the most recent case, Reyhaneh Jabbari, hung for killing her rapist. When an amnesty appeal was posted on here urging people to speak up, to sign petitions, make a fuss, create pressure (it worked for Sakina, she was granted a stay).. there was barely noise. A few people - SJW blogs - even argued that the campaign (built by iranian feminists) was “racist” and eurocentric, and that it was “their culture, not ours”. Barely 200 notes worth of outrage.

However, a straight up propaganda post from twitter that includes images of rich, upper-middleclass Iranians in the capital city, enjoying art and bands (which okay, yes, some do! But consider which class of people get this freedom! which don’t? what price is this freedom if you trample on the stories of others to show it?), arguing that all negative images of forced hijab in Iran post-revolution are inaccurate (and that the coup was *solely* about ‘oil’, lol - he’s not wrong but what a reductive analysis) and posting essentially propaganda of smiling happy private parties (I know for a fact that one of the pictures is actually from a posed photoshoot because I’ve seen the original, so fuck knows what that is doing in there) as if this is the whole… thousands upon thousands of notes, uncritical. The idea that all the human rights complaints, the campaigns from actual iranian feminists are just exaggerated fakery or racist american cliches is so palatable (”the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mentality) that it’s so easy for this to become the unquestioned norm on here. At best, y’all are gullible - your feminism is one that finds it easier to listen the side that confirms your views of the world, that chooses a state and is happy with it, than the voice that has no choice and is actually hurting, because this is easier, makes you feel less uncomfortable. The easy ‘one country is good and misunderstood, the other is bad’ mentality, rather than “both countries have serious shit to sort out, and both need our support”. At worst, your feminism genuinely doesn’t give a shit about people who actually need progressive solidarity.

#iran #liberal feminism #racism #sjw

14 notes · View notes

213hiphopworldnews · 5 years

Text

Kodak Black’s Disastrous Hot 97 Interview Shows Why Journalists Need To Hold Artists Accountable

Getty Image

“We can be done right here.”

With just those six words, Ebro Darden, host of Hot 97’s popular Ebro In The Morning radio show and one of hip-hop’s most outspoken cultural voices, ignited a firestorm of debate online about his treatment of Wednesday’s guest, the rising Florida rapper, Kodak Black. Ostensibly, Kodak was on the show to discuss his upcoming debut album on Atlantic Records, Dying To Live. However, within just 15 minutes, the topic had shifted, rather uncomfortably, to the sexual assault case hanging over the 21-year-old rapper’s head like the Sword of Damocles.

Kodak stands accused of raping a young woman at a hotel room in 2016 after one of his local concerts. The woman told police that he tore at her clothes, bit her repeatedly, and told her he “couldn’t help himself,” all while she screamed for help. The rapper was arrested, indicted, and recently arraigned on those charges, even as he battled other charges ranging from possession of a firearm to child neglect, and will stand trial in April of next year. If convicted, he could face up to 30 years in prison. Understandably, Kodak chose to take Ebro at his word, abruptly ending the interview and walking out.

youtube

Ebro knew the risk of upsetting his interview subject. He should; he’s still a journalist. His job is to interview subjects for their stories, opinions, and information about themselves, and when that conversation gets difficult, artists can always opt out, refusing further access in the future. However, despite his flawed approach, he was right in touching upon the subject of the case. Not just because it’s his job, but because there is a deeper, ethical imperative to hold entertainers accountable for their actions, and more journalists have to step up and ask the tough questions, even when things get uncomfortable or artists threaten to pull access. While he could have gone about it in a more sensitive fashion — and should have, for reasons I’ll get into below — Ebro is an example for the responsibility journalists have to tell as much of the story as we possibly can.

Watch the entire @KodakBlack1k interview… I think most of it was honest & balanced. He’s a smart guy… I just won’t be given ultimatums after we tried to be chill.. nah

— El Viejo Ebro (@oldmanebro) December 12, 2018

It’s easy to see why some of us don’t. Hip-hop has sort of always had an image problem, but in the last three or four years, it’s gotten as bad as it’s ever been. To some, it appears that the roots of the newly massive problem stem from the rise of so-called Soundcloud rap — or at least, the ability for underground rappers to capture disproportionately huge audiences by simply uploading a few songs and having them go viral. When these local acts blow up, they do so without the previously required years of grooming and development. Sometimes they have no intentions of being famous at all.

I never asked Kodak a question about the case…

— El Viejo Ebro (@oldmanebro) December 13, 2018

Then one day they suddenly are, thrust into a spotlight they’re ill-equipped to handle, often nursing serious trauma that has never been addressed before they hit the hip-hop media circuit. Instead, they find themselves like Kodak Black, suddenly being asked to stand accountable for actions that their surroundings tell them are completely normal and reasonable. It would be overwhelming for anyone, and in an effort to protect their artists, labels, managers, publicists, and corporate partners have gone out of their way to ensure that all coverage is as favorable as possible, scrubbing away at artists’ flaws and quirks that may make them less marketable. Any negative coverage can get access revoked, ensuring that there is a carrot and a stick for any outlet that wishes to use an artists’ buzz to help build its own.

The result has been a seeming deluge of young, unworldly rappers full of pain, anger, and negative coping habits being sheltered from criticism by powers with more profit motive than actual empathy for their issues. Famous Dex,Youngboy NBA, Kodak Black, XXXtentacion, Tekashi 69, and more are all examples of young men who act out their issues of rage and control on women, either via physical battery or through sexual misconduct.

Else we consign the issue to a generational one, many of the rap stars of yesteryear have also been embroiled in recent incidents of accused abuse; Fabolous was accused of knocking girlfriend Emily B’s teeth out and was caught threatening her on camera with a knife, while Kelis recently revealed that her relationship with rap legend Nas was rife with instances of physical abuse.

Imagine being mad at Ebro for not ignoring the fact an artist sitting in front of him has an open SEXUAL ASSAULT case and not bothered by the actual crime. pic.twitter.com/1graJRd4UC

— . (@DDotOmen) December 13, 2018

And while the ultimate solution to these issues is likely counseling, Uproxx writer Andre Gee once pointed out, the first step toward any sort of resolution is to hold these artists accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, they often live in industry-created bubbles designed to protect them from critique. Peers and fans often step in and fill the gap, shouting down any possible dissent. That’s why it’s up to the journalists who are the still an important piece of these entertainers’ publicity to ensure that their profiles and interviews aren’t all glowing recommendations of these artists. I’ve written before about rappers’ positions of influence as role models — whether voluntary or not — so it’s even more important to ensure that the audience understands all of the facts about them.

People being furious at Ebro for telling Kodak Black "We take sexual assault seriously here" is proof there's a lack of guidance out here. People whose job is interviewing musicians are supposed to ask hard questions. But that wasn't a hard question. That was just accountability.

— Craig Bro Dude (@CraigSJ) December 13, 2018

Of course, that won’t stop some fans from leaping to their heroes’ defense; for a certain type of fan, nothing much will. Within minutes of Hot 97 posting the clip of Kodak sulking out of the interview, Ebro’s account was inundated with indignant Kodak Black supporters who insisted that he was “clout chasing” or only bringing up the case to ensure views for his station’s Youtube video of the interview. For what it’s worth, some of their criticisms were valid; Ebro, long known for his sometimes confrontational stance — especially against younger, newer artists he perceives as “bad for the culture” — could have broached the topic a little more cleanly. Certainly, when Kodak became visibly uncomfortable, Ebro’s follow-up could be seen as an unnecessary goad.

What’s most concerning bout this Ebro x Kodak thing is that ppl have seemed to lose grip of the fact that journalists are supposed to ask tough questions. You can like a nigga music & still press him. It’s called being a professional. Ppl more mad at Ebro than Kodak. I’m confused

— Lawrence Burney (@TrueLaurels) December 13, 2018

But those fans who believe that interviews should only focus on one aspect of the artist — the music — are dead wrong. Interviews often touch on multiple subjects, including entertainers’ personal lives, relationships with other artists, and yes, their legal issues. This isn’t just good journalism; it’s finding out what makes the artists tick, knowing that life informs art. The adulation comes with criticism; it’s a package deal. In the words of one such entertainer, “If you open up that can of worms, hope you ready for the dirt that’s with it.” Scrutiny is not unavoidable, and what’s more, rappers who use their privilege as entertainers to avoid punishment and accountability for their actions mustn’t be allowed to forget the real world consequences of those actions. Entertainers should absolutely be made uncomfortable, as often as possible, when any portion of their notoriety comes from harming women.

Nah Ebro was right. We gotta start making niggas who abuse women feel uncomfortable.

— Don V (@DonV757_) December 13, 2018

When the subject came up, one thing Kodak says in the interview is: “ya’ll be entertained by bullsh*t,” and he isn’t wrong. America loves to build up flawed heroes in order to watch as their flaws ultimately tear them down — especially young, Black, heroes from impoverished circumstances with broken social skills from a life of hardships in a screwed-up environment. But ignoring those flaws isn’t a solution, because for every famous rapper who gets to glide through life untouched by said bullsh*t, there are victims who have to live with the traumas and injuries inflicted on them by those rappers. They deserve as much consideration as the rappers who clawed their way out of poverty, violence, and limited opportunity, because they’ve often done the same thing without the benefit of a label advance and a publicist who makes sure people only write nice things about them.

I’m really concerned that as a society, and on a smaller scale the hip-hop community, we may be regressing when it comes to sexual assault. When the outrage is that Ebro merely mentioned sexual assault & not that Kodak continues to thrive despite rape charges, we have a problem.

— Bené (@beneviera) December 13, 2018

If Ebro’s approach was too harsh, guess what: Allegedly, so was Kodak Black’s. The only way to get this new crop of troubled young men to get the help they need is by getting them to acknowledge and truly face the real-world implications of their abuse, because prison isn’t a solution either. Kodak has been in and out of detention since he was 14 years old, and the only effect its had is to distance him from the sort of empathy he would need to understand the harm he’s caused and make amends. He could spend the rest of his life behind bars, but that doesn’t help the next kid, or the next. If labels, managers, publicists, fans, friends, or family won’t say what needs to be said, then journalists must. Fame shouldn’t be a free pass, but it is powerful. If power corrupts, those in power must always be held accountable.

Kodak Black is a Warner Music artist. Uproxx is an independent subsidiary of Warner Music Group.

source https://uproxx.com/hiphop/kodak-black-hot-97-interview-journalists-accountability/

#hiphop #hip hop legend #hip hop history #hip hop #music #trending #hip hop news #ballin #hip hop scen

0 notes