Avatar

this blog is a fucking mess

@harnarius / harnarius.tumblr.com

i don't know if im annoying you and at this point im too afraid to ask.
hannah, 25, they/them. icon by kapebeans
anime trash blog @resentfuldonuts
Avatar
Avatar
elbiotipo

When South Africa dismantled apartheid, it did not end with the expulsion of all white South Africans. They became part of the new South Africa, just without the criminal discriminatory oligarchic powers the apartheid goverment had. When Bolivia recognized its indigenous heritage and became a plurinational state, it did not mean that people of European descent were expelled in masse. It meant the recognition of the previously discriminated indigenous and mestizo people of Bolivia and the beginning of a path of integration and revalidation.

What I mean is that it's ridiculous to think that decolonization inherently means mass suffering and relocation, that's what colonization does. Decolonization is recognizing the crimes of colonization, but more importantly, material, political and social steps to give power and self-determination to the exploited native people who were victims of colonialism and imperialism.

In multicultural societies, you don't go like in that Peter Griffin meme with a skin tone chart and saying 'well, you go back to Europe, you go back to Africa, you stay here'. You build a new society on the paradigm of dignity for exploited people and equality under the law. People are acting like this is some sort of fantastic utopia instead of real initiatives that were done in living memory, with successes and failures, as all such initiatives have. One must ask why are some so insistent that multicultural societies can't thrive, especially when for most of history, societies were indeed like that. Consider why you think like that.

Avatar
reblogged

so we're just not gonna have a national conversation about how Boeing killed one of their own employees to keep him from talking to the press

like we're really not gonna address the fact that he died of a "self inflicted head wound" literal hours after Boeings lawyers asked him to stay an extra day. We're not gonna speak on the fact that he told his family "if I die, it wasn't suicide " before he went to go testify. None of it huh

Oh? You haven't heard? I'm not surprised with how hard the media are parrying it

THAT TOO. LMFAOOO

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
fortooate

we teach girls to shrink themselves, to fit themselves more compactly in a transistor. we expect girls to double in processing efficiency every two years. we say to sufficiently advanced girls, you are indistinguishable from magic

Check for understanding:

  1. What is this post about? What are “girls?”
  2. How does this post begin? Why does it begin this way in particular?
  3. What is the tone of this post?
  4. Why did OP most likely create this post?
Avatar
reblogged

This is fascinating for two reasons.

1. They haven’t actually apologised for anything. She’s pre-emptively rejecting an apology that they have no intention of giving.

2. Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson are extremely well-liked. A lot of people are more attached to them in their roles as they are to the actual characters in the books.

What does JK Rowling gain by coming out with this?

Avatar
lasrina

OK, I'm gonna tell you what she gains by coming out with this.

A person who isn't extremely online enough to have the full, and I mean the full context of this feud--like, say, my mom, who has no idea what a TERF even is or why it's bad to be one--sees the headline and goes, "Huh. Those two young people did something that made the nice book lady so mad, she won't accept their apologies," and goes away with NO further knowledge than that.

The headline does not include the fact that they didn't apologize. This does not include what they were responding to when they made the statements for which she thinks they should apologize. It only includes the fact that she didn't accept their apologies, which in older generations goes to that whole "civility" thing - if someone apologies, the social rules say you have to accept unless the thing that was done to you was really really unforgivable.

The logical conclusion is that they said something so awful that 1) they DID apologize for it and 2) she didn't accept.

So this gets filed away in the casual viewer's brain and the next time they see Daniel Radcliffe's and Emma Watson's names, what the brain search pulls up is, "Aren't they the two people who were really mean to that nice author lady?"

Think about any celebrity you have a vaguely negative opinion of. Not like "Oh, that's the guy who killed someone" but like "Didn't he get in some kind of trouble at some point?" You probably don't recall the details. You don't have to, to make a value judgment. By the same logic, now Daniel Radcliffe's and Emma Watson's reputations are very slightly tarnished while hers is very slightly bolstered, and the person is slightly more inclined to listen to JKR than to DR or EW in the future.

I'd say even the way the photos are presented is a problem. We read English from left to right so first you see a nice middle-aged white lady (those earrings signal wealth), and then you see a young man with a scruffy beard (I can already hear my mom going "He'd be cute if he'd shave that awful stubble" because that's not what appeals to people from her era). You don't see the young woman at all. This is now subconsciously about the guy being sexist, probably. I mean, who knows? I'm a person swiping through the internet who's not gonna read the article, but it's going into my big squishy human constantly-value-judging brain all the same.

So yeah, this is absolutely conscious on the part of the JKR making this statement with the knowledge that this is how it's gonna be covered by the media, and likewise conscious on the part of the media that are choosing to give the extremely wealthy lady air time for this total non-event of a hypothetical statement.

Avatar
cy-cyborg

Exactly. Articles like this very intentionally appeal to casual viewers and they do work. I've had to explain similar ones to my sister/parents who just don't know or care about celebrities for the most part. With context it makes JK look kind of desperate and petty lol, but without it, it can paint her in a much better light.

[ID of original post: a screenshot of The Independent on Twitter showing a photo of JK Rowling and Daniel Radcliffe with a caption that reads: "JK Rowling says Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson can 'save their apologies'"]
You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.