Avatar

mysterysquid

@mysterysquid / mysterysquid.tumblr.com

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
sluti-snek

all the internet did was give him a place where he didnt have to worry about being punched in the face when he says what he thinks

“he’s not like that in real life” just means “he’s not like that when there are repercussions”

I feel like too many people take that for granted. That somehow we’re allowed to be utterly rude offensive people towards each other…As long as there’s no direct repercussions for being like such. I think a lot of people misjudge just what it means when someone acts utterly different when they know there’s no laws holding them back, and what that says about them.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
rhube

Rebageling because although I know you all know that Superman was always an immigrant story, that last little bit about Clark finding solidarity in an immigrant community is wholesome an a new-to-me idea.

Avatar
reblogged

Renowned Feminist Philosopher Judith Butler Tears Transphobic Feminism Apart

Judith Butler says that J.K.Rowling and the transphobic TERFs do not speak for feminism at large.

If you haven’t heard about Judith Butler before, here is a short summary: She is one of the most important gender theorists in modern times.  

When right wing extremists despair about postmodern gender theory, she is probably one of the thinkers they are referring to (not that they have ever read her). 

She has shown how social structures, language,  the stories we tell and the roles we play strengthens the oppression and marginalization of women. In other words: For her gender is definitely a cultural and social phenomenon, and because of that she is on a collision course with the so-called “gender critical feminists” (TERFs) who want to reduce gender to biological sex.

I strongly recommend that you read the recent New Statement interview with Butler, where she addresses the thinking and the tactics of TERFs in very clear terms. The interview is behind a paywall, but you should be able to access a couple of articles for free.

Still – in case you are locked out – here are some important excerpts.

She refuses to think of transphobic TERFs as mainstream feminists.

I want to first question whether trans-exclusionary feminists are really the same as mainstream feminists. If you are right to identify the one with the other, then a feminist position opposing transphobia is a marginal position. I think this may be wrong. My wager is that most feminists support trans rights and oppose all forms of transphobia. 
So I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. 
I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen. 

She dismisses J.K. Rowling’s idea that allowing people to identify as they want will be a threat to women in women’s bathrooms.

The feminist who holds such a view presumes that the penis does define the person, and that anyone with a penis would identify as a woman for the purposes of entering such changing rooms and posing a threat to the women inside. It assumes that the penis is the threat, or that any person who has a penis who identifies as a woman is engaging in a base, deceitful, and harmful form of disguise. 
This is a rich fantasy, and one that comes from powerful fears, but it does not describe a social reality. Trans women are often discriminated against in men’s bathrooms, and their modes of self-identification are ways of describing a lived reality, one that cannot be captured or regulated by the fantasies brought to bear upon them. 

She dismisses the idea that the term “trans-exclusionary radical feminist” (TERF)  is a slur.

I wonder what name self-declared feminists who wish to exclude trans women from women’s spaces would be called? If they do favour exclusion, why not call them exclusionary? If they understand themselves as belonging to that strain of radical feminism that opposes gender reassignment, why not call them radical feminists? 
My only regret is that there was a movement of radical sexual freedom that once travelled under the name of radical feminism, but it has sadly morphed into a campaign to pathologise trans and gender non-conforming peoples. 
My sense is that we have to renew the feminist commitment to gender equality and gender freedom in order to affirm the complexity of gendered lives as they are currently being lived.

She does not accept the idea that the term gender can be defined once and for all, for example in reference to biology.

We depend on gender as a historical category, and that means we do not yet know all the ways it may come to signify, and we are open to new understandings of its social meanings. 
It would be a disaster for feminism to return either to a strictly biological understanding of gender or to reduce social conduct to a body part or to impose fearful fantasies, their own anxieties, on trans women… Their abiding and very real sense of gender ought to be recognised socially and publicly as a relatively simple matter of according another human dignity. 

She also says:

It is painful to see that Trump’s position that gender should be defined by biological sex, and that the evangelical and right-wing Catholic effort to purge “gender” from education and public policy accords with the trans-exclusionary radical feminists’ return to biological essentialism. 
It is a sad day when some feminists promote the anti-gender ideology position of the most reactionary forces in our society.

So there you have it: One of our leading feminist philosophers are comparing TERFs to the transphobic extremists of the right. And she is right to do so.

It is important to stress this: TERFs are not representative of feminism. They represent a toxic fringe movement that at this point in time does more to help right wing misogynists than women. 

Photo: Adorno Preis

By the way, if you’ve ever jumped into debating with radfems or other exclusionists, this is a must-read.

Look at how Butler is dissecting the TERF position. She isn’t arguing on their terms - half the goal of exclusionists is to draw you into an argument over their false premise, in order to get you to legitimize their position. No, Butler is doing exactly the right thing, and pointing out their whole foundation is flawed. Her deconstruction of TERF ideology is most cutting because it’s effectively, concisely, and clearly explaining that the premise of their beliefs is wrong at every level - that what they propose is not for debate because it is fundamentally false.

Anyway, I’m just absolute in adoration over how she talks about these topics. She’s not just tearing down TERF rhetoric, she’s dismantling it with the precision of a master.

Avatar
warriorsdebt

Really seconding this now that I’ve read the full interview, and I highly recommend y'all do the same. This is a masterclass in combating exclusionary rhetoric by dismantling the premise, which is precisely where it is most flawed and most in need of interrogation.

Avatar
rhube

It’s blessed it hear a respected philosopher saying what I’ve been saying for years. Some of these finer points get lost in Accepted Tumblr Rhetoric, and it really is worth hearing the nuances from someone whose job it is to think really hard about this shit.

Also, she identifies as non-binary, so she’s getting this stuff right for non-binary people as well. Something a lot of y’all forget about and stuff up on when you focus on binary trans people.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
rizahawkais

ENOLA HOLMES (2020)

Avatar
taraljc

Everything about this movie makes me glee and I desperately hope the Amazing Brown Sisters can get the greenlight to adapt more books in the series.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
bunjywunjy
Anonymous asked:

Bunjy a question, do you think any cryptids could plausibly exist?

at least one cryptid definitely does exist in the sense that it was an actual creature who encountered and really freaked out a couple of humans- Mothman!

<art src- Tim Bertelink>

it was a barred owl.

see, owls have a really bright eyeshine at night, and in a really unusual color- blood red

and barred owls have the brightest eyeshine of them all- so bright you could swear you were looking at the oncoming headlights of the Hellfire Express! 

at close range, the eyeshine of a barred owl would be almost blinding- like shining a bright flashlight directly into those bicycle spoke reflector things. like this:

and wouldn’t you know it, barred owls are found in the areas where Mothman was first sighted.

so what presumably happened was that several people had very close encounters with one or several barred owls, and the red hellfire glare of the owl was so bright that it made the owl’s eyes look the size of fucking softballs!

Image

and since it was night and the owl was moving the shape of it was too indistinct to make out, so the humans’ brains extrapolated a body outline for this unknown creature that was MUCH bigger than the owl actually was! it’s also stupid difficult to judge distances in the sky at night so they may have thought the owl was further away when it was almost on top of them. and HEY PRESTO, A LEGEND WAS BORN.

but this doesn’t mean that Mothman was never real, quite the contrary! Mothman is real in the only place that matters,,,, in our hearts 

support owl conservation efforts in your local area though, and you may someday see a Mothman of your own!

Avatar

@thebibliosphere you married a night owl alright

That’s hysterical, because that’s exactly what he says about me.

Avatar
theredkite

My gran told me about the time a barn owl started hunting in a graveyard near where she lived, and a lot of people were sure they’d seen a ghost for a while before someone pointed out that nope, owl. (This was during the blackout, so no streetlights, light from windows, torches - on a moonless or overcast night you’d barely even see the owl, nevermind get a proper look at have a chance of identifying it.)

Avatar
Avatar
bogleech

I can verify this because I like, live out here and stuff, it’s pretty weird to watch the news call it a burning warzone every day

this is how propaganda works

Ah yes, because everyone knows, absolutely no ones’ lives or property are in danger until the entire city has been reduced to rubble.

  • It’s literally like one block of downtown that it’s all focused in.
  • Few things have sustained more than a broken window or some graffiti.
  • Photos and videos of completely trashed buildings are including those that have been that way for years.
  • Stats on closures and financial losses are being confused with those related to covid-19.
  • The news keeps mentioning the same two or three little “family owned” businesses that got hurt in outbreaks of panic but can’t seem to come up with any more than that.
  • That’s because downtown is dominated by places Starbuck’s, Rite-Aid, Target, Apple, Microsoft, Nordstrom Rack, Whole Foods, Men’s Warehouse, Payless, AT&T, Sprint, Doc Marten’s and other big chain brands.
  • Brands which themselves cost hundreds of people their livelihoods or homes when they came here, which people were already angry about before any of this happened.
  • This is in fact one of the fastest gentrified cities in America.
  • Oops, I forgot the scientology building got vandalized too. Poor babies.
  • And STILL, the most that’s happened to the majority is a little graffiti.

Vandalism of business was already commonplace in a city where so much business was lost to gentrification, and the relationship between several major companies and its citizens already strained for very good reason. In fact, this isn’t even a downtown location, but a beloved bowling alley people were hoping to see reopen a couple years ago:

And here it is now:

Damage to inanimate things such as property is an inevitability when large numbers of people are angry together. It’s also undeniable that American law enforcement violates people’s rights every single day, people have protested that for generations without seeing it get better, and outrage over that is justifiable no matter whose bricks or plaster or linoleum gets caught in the crossfire. All media attention to “damaged businesses” is a distraction from what actually matters, on top of being ridiculously overblown.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
fanonical
Anonymous asked:

hey do you think you could expand a bit on separating the art from the artist? clearly you’ve done it with jk rowling but what are your thoughts on it as a general idea?

Okay, but you’re not going to like the answer.

Here’s the truth: you can’t separate the art from the artist. Not entirely. HP Lovecraft was an incredibly talented, but much more incredibly racist man. It would nice to say you don’t agree with his views but you can enjoy his works without that leaking in but.... well, I’m afraid that would be misunderstanding his books entirely.

Consider, for a second, that Lovecraft’s works were horror stories about extradimensional creatures having mutant children with humans; they were about invasions from distant aliens; they were about the purity of quaint, white, American towns being tainted. Now consider how this may have all been influenced by the fact that he just simply despised anybody who wasn’t white. Consider how his opinions on “mixing the races” might feed into this; consider why being unable to maintain the “purity” of white Americans was the scariest thing of all to him.

This extends to Rowling too.

I would love to say we can just acknowledge that she is an awful, racist, antisemitic, transphobic person and then say “but at least her books are good,” because, well, they are, aren’t they? I would say so, for sure. But to suggest that one can separate her from them is.... ridiculous, and it’s an insult to fans, can know and do better.

Consider why an antisemitic woman wrote about a species of goblins who live among us, but who for the most part keep to themselves and are maybe a little discriminated against on an individual level, but also hold all the cards, all the money, run the banks.

Consider why a racist woman would write about a species of slaves who loved being enslaved, who enjoyed working for no pay, and cleaning up after humans, with the only small caveat of that they didn’t want to be beaten. Imagine that only the most radical of their species wanted to be free, and he still spent the rest of his life working for no pay and helping out a little white boy and his friends wherever he could. Consider why the only person in the story who thought they should be free, that they should have rights, was treated as an overzealous joke, who was acting against the wishes of those slaves who really LOVE being enslaved. Consider that Rowling went on to say that she kind of considers that girl to be black, now.

Consider why JK Rowling, an open and proud transphobe, wrote Rita Skeeter as having a large square jaw, thick “manly” hands, and dressing incredibly gaudily with the most obvious fake nails and fake teeth and fake hair and fake everything. Consider why a woman who tweets about how trans women are “foxes pretending to be hens to get in the hen house” might write this Rita Skeeter character to then illegally transform her body in order to spy on children.

Harry Potter is full of Rowling’s bigotry, start to finish. Not even tangentially, like, “oh the goblins are bad, Rita Skeeter is bad, the house elves are bad, but most of it’s good!” because the deeper you dig and the longer you think the more you realise the entire story is based on her prejudices.

Harry Potter pretends to be an aracial story about found family, but if that were true, why are Harry’s distant ancestors important to who he is today even in the seventh book? Why does Harry have to live with his cousin and aunt and uncle? Because magic inherently prefers blood ties. Whilst Rowling was writing a story that seemed to say, “your heritage is not that important and doesn’t make you better than others” she was still writing a story about a boy who got all of his money through his bloodline, who was protected by living with his bloodline, no matter how evil, who was uniquely able to stop Voldemort because his bloodline passed down the invisibility cloak for generations and generations. Any step Harry takes he is compared to his perfect parents who were exactly like him — he looks just like his father, but he has his mother’s eyes, you know! — consider WHY a woman who is racist might’ve written a story like this. A story that on its surface, condemns a blood caste, but still in every step it takes, validates the idea that blood is thicker than water, and your geneological origin is what makes you special.

You can enjoy Harry Pottwr, of course you can. There are fantastic parts. I love a small group of teenagers deciding to become anarchist rebels and train to fight against fascism in secret. I love the murder mystery plots, I love how the series tells kids that it’s a good thing to be brave, and a good thing to fight injustice, and a good thing to challenge the government. But I cannot separate it from its author because it is such a product of its author. All of the structures of the world, the way things work in the universe, are drenched in Rowling’s beliefs, her bigotries. Of course they are: she made them.

Again. This doesn’t mean you cannot enjoy it. But I think we are past the day where we can pretend that disavowing a bigoted author is enough, and that that somehow separates the text from its bigotry. I think we are past the day where we can pretend that Harry Potter isn’t a deeply, inherently bigoted piece of media. Even the bits we love. I think we are beyond the day where we can truthfully pretend to separate it from her, because she is present through all of it. We MUST recognise its flaws. We MUST admit that she is in every part of it.

Avatar
Avatar
reblogged

an incomplete list of things that really happen in Moby Dick, an absolutely wild book that I have just finished after four months

Note: events are in the order that I think of them and not the order in which they occur in the book:

  • Ishmael goes to an inn and they say “there are no beds but if you want to share with this cannibal that’s cool.” Ishmael shares with the cannibal, whose name is Queequeg, and after establishing that he is not going to get eaten, seems to fall madly in love with him.
  • Quote: “How it is I know not; but there is no place like a bed for confidential disclosures between friends. Man and wife, they say, there open the very bottom of their souls to each other; and some old couples often lie and chat over old times till nearly morning. Thus, then, in our hearts’ honeymoon, lay I and Queequeg—a cosy, loving pair.”
  • Quote: “He pressed his forehead against mine, clasped me round the waist, and said that henceforth we were married; meaning, in his country’s phrase, that we were bosom friends; he would gladly die for me, if need should be.”
  • Fellas is it gay to kiss a man’s nose, cuddle in bed with him, compare yourselves to honeymooners, declare love after 24 hours, and then declare you’re married repeatedly throughout the book?
  • Backing up a bit, it’s apparently taken for granted the Pacific Islanders are cannibals? But Ishmael also does not seem to have a problem with this, and at some point straight up defends cannibalism (at one point going on a “we’re all cannibals because MEAT IS MURDER” tangent, which is a bit rich for a dude whose day job is killing whales.)
  • He regularly refers the Polynesian characters as savages, but then will occasionally remind us that he thinks all people are savages, singling out Achilles and, for some reason, German painter Albrecht Durer.
  • (Occasionally Queequeg will be like “wow Christians are weirdos” and Ishmael will be like “oh shit… he’s right. Why are we such weirdos.”)
  • At one point while they’re still on land, Ishmael becomes convinced that Queequeg has killed himself, because he’s locked himself in their room. He gets the landlady tells someone to get a sign made that says “no suicides permitted here, and no smoking in the parlor;” because, quote, “might as well kill both birds at once.”
  • It turns out that Queequeg has not killed himself, he is just squatting with a statue of his god held over his head and refuses to move a muscle until sundown. This is how Herman Melville thinks Ramadan is practiced.
  • Sidebar: Melville seemed under the impression that Ramadan was a Polynesian thing?
  • Ishamel drags capitalism at every opportunity
  • and if there isn’t an opportunity, he makes one
  • “Paying for things sucks but getting paid is the best even though money is terrible and people who chase money are all going to hell”
  • On one of the ships they run into, one of the sailors has declared that he is the Archangel Gabriel, and basically recruited most of the crew into a cult. This is never mentioned again.
  • Instead, Melville gives us entire chapters on: whale heads, whale tales, why whaling is a noble calling actually, rope, etc.
  • At one point Ishmael flat-out says that if you don’t respect whaling he will fight you 
  • There is an entire chapter about the color white, in which he lists other white things he thinks are scary. They include: great white sharks, polar bears, albatrosses, the Andes mountains, and albinos.
  • There is also an entire chapter about whale penis. At one point, if I read that chapter correctly, a dude makes the whale penis into a suit? Or possibly climbs into it? It’s all very euphemistic at that point.
  • After they kill a whale, they have to do something known as “squeezing sperm.” (He’s referring to parts of the sperm whale, not actual sperm.“ Ishmael REALLY LIKES squeezing sperm, and goes on about how how sometimes, when squeezing sperm, he accidentally squeezes the hands of his fellows by accident, because they are also squeezing sperm, and Ishmael really likes that and wishes they could hold hands more.
  • “Would that I could keep squeezing that sperm for ever!” - Ishmael, chapter 94.
  • He admits that sure, maybe over-whaling could lead to fewer whales, but whales are so big and have been here such a long time that there can’t be any risk of them ever being endangered: look at Elephants! Elephants are doing fine!
  • The previous chapter did not age well.
  • There is a dude named Peleg with very strong @dril vibes who, when accused of being a little off his rocker, declares “say that again to me, and start my soul-bolts, but I’ll—I’ll—yes, I’ll swallow a live goat with all his hair and horns on.”
  • At one point Ishmael’s boat almost gets run over by the ship, and he’s like “is that normal???” and everyone is like “yep” and Ishmael is like “cool if anyone is looking for me I’ll be writing my will” and goes and does that. Which is hilarious because he established in the first chapter that he does not own Anything.
  • Ishmael is so invested in measuring whales that he tattoos’ whales dimensions onto his arm because he doesn’t have anywhere else to write it down
  • He’s also really offended that pirates are more famous than whalers.
  • Queequeg gets a fever and has the carpenter build him a coffin, but then he gets better so they turn his coffin into a buoy. This buoy is the reason Ishmael is the only one not to go down with the ship, so in a way, Queequeg did die to save him. Huh.
  • Captain Ahab decides that what he needs to kill Moby Dick is a Special Harpoon. He has the blacksmith make one. They are still on their wooden ship at this time and, despite over-explaining every other detail, Melville does not seem to clarify how they did this without burning the ship down.
  • Ahab also decides he needs to temper it in blood, and asks the harpooners if they’ll contribute some, and they’re like “yeah, whatever, man.”
  • (The harpooners are all POC who write off all shenanigans as Weird White People Shit, and seem to be the only ones with the braincells.)
  • The other character with one brain cell is Starbuck, the first mate, who really wants to go home to his wife Mary, and his son, “boy.” I am not convinced he knows his son’s name.
  • Ahab makes himself a nest on the mast so he can look for Moby Dick and a bird steals his hat

Some out of context quotes:

  • “Hark! The infernal orgies!”
  • “Long usage had, for this Stubb, converted the jaws of death into an easy chair.”
  • “Stubb knows him best of all, and Stubb always says he’s queer; says nothing but that one sufficient little word queer; he’s queer, says Stubb; he’s queer– queer, queer; and keeps dinning it into Mr. Starbuck all the time– queer– sir– queer, queer, very queer.”
  • “Alas! Dough-boy!”
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.