{{previous post in sequence}}


Red Panda reaction-blogging update:

I listened to “Death From Above” and “The Judas Boats” on my traditional Saturday afternoon walk yesterday.

First of all, while I miss the primeverse*, I think I am starting to warm up to this one, or maybe it’s starting to warm up to itself and I’m sensing that. The Red Panda is starting to feel more…himself, in spots, and I’m not sure if that’s a character thing, or if Taylor’s gotten more confident at voice acting in later episodes, or what.

Also…okay, look. For my readers who have not listened to the Red Panda Adventures, and who–like me–are often very sensitive to authors’ politics shining through in their fiction, I want to assure you that it is pretty subtle. There’s no anvils, there’s almost no pressuring even by the standards of someone who can hear SJ dogwhistles a little too well.

That being said, there is nevertheless a clear sense, while listening to the primeverse Red Panda Adventures, that a liberal wrote this. Not enough to be pressury, just enough to be…home-y. I get the feeling that, while I may not know what makes this author tick (I often have trouble with grokking what makes a given liberal tick), I do know what he considers socially acceptable and what he doesn’t, and I can trust him to stay within those bounds as much as he can given the setting, and to provide a sense that the narrative disapproves in those times he can’t.

The pilots don’t feel like a liberal wrote them. They feel like…like an apathetic centrist wrote them. Someone whose birth subculture has not much overt bigotry but a lot of low-level background stuff, who might very well come to the conclusion that this was still horrible if he ever gave it some serious thought, but who never has given it that thought. There’s these little moments in the pilots of…other people might call them “microaggressions”, but I think of them as culture shock. Those little off-balance moments where you realise that your interlocutor’s standards of social acceptability are different from yours, that you can’t predict (can’t trust) what they’re going to do and say as well as you thought you could.

It’s not my place to ask**, but I wonder if maybe Taylor was an apathetic centrist at the time, and moved to liberal-land sometime in the mid-00’s. If he did, it’s fascinating that it shows so clearly. If not, it’s still very interesting that it feels like he did.

Alternatively, maybe it feels apathetic-centrist because it was intended to be played on mainstream radio for a “mainstream” (thus presumed apathetic-centrist) audience, and in podcasts he could be more himself. I think I’m going to have to listen to the Season One Spectacular again, particularly the bits about how the Red Panda came to be.

*I was going to switch to some other podcast for my walks for a while once I was done with Red Panda ones, but I think I might have to go straight into a re-listen.

**I don’t really want other people to ask, but it occurred to me that somebody might take it upon themself to ask anyway. If so, please do not link me to him. There’s some stuff in my Red Panda tag that would be very awkward for the author to see.


Tags:

#Red Panda Adventures #Gregg Taylor’s Twitter looks exactly as I would expect a Twitter to look #given only that it was run by the same person who wrote the Red Panda Adventures #mostly tweets about the shows and other fandoms and home life #but with occasional standard liberal fare mixed in #oh look an original post #reactionblogging #our roads may be golden or broken or lost


{{next post in sequence}}

sinesalvatorem:

animatedamerican:

aviewfrommercury:

asgardreid:

aviewfrommercury:

asgardreid:

If you’re awake between 3 AM and 6 AM you’re appropriating lycanthrope culture and you need to go to sleep and check your privilege

This is blatant vampire erasure.

Go write a sad poem about it

My name is Vlad
and wen its nite
or wen the wolves
art pohsting shite
and all discourse
haf gon to dogs –
i stay up late.
i clik ‘reblog’

PEAK TUMBLR

@kelsbraintumbler


Tags:

#… #…I don’t even know what to tag this

{{previous post in sequence}}


(I reserve the right to delete this one, too)

There is…a cliche? a conversational pattern?–described in the atheist blogosphere, at least as of the late 00′s/early 10′s.

As the atheists describe it, it goes something like this:

Christian: But clearly you do still believe in God, deep down, because morality comes from God. People do what’s right because God wills it, because they know God will judge them. The fact that you aren’t on a killing spree right now means you know God will judge you, too.

Atheist: …no? My morality stems fro– wait. Are you saying you would go on a killing spree if you thought God wasn’t watching?

The atheists speak of the chilling realisation of how close someone is to snapping. The realisation that you were actively pushing someone towards snapping. They hope that the Christians who fit into this pattern are merely bad at introspection, that their moralities would still function if God were removed from the equation, but fear that those Christians are portraying themselves accurately.

What no one talks about, at least not in my experience, is that it’s also terrifying from the other side. Oh, maybe some of those Christians are really confident it’s because atheists still have enough belief in God to act morally, but the ones who aren’t so confident?

It is a terrible thing to look at someone and realise that you do not know why they aren’t torturing you right now. You hope they have reasons of their own, but even if they do…because you don’t understand those reasons, you don’t know what would convince them to change their mind about the no-torture thing. You wouldn’t be able to tell in advance that they’re changing their mind, and you have no clue how you’d go about persuading them not to.

(Some parts of you–the part that assumes the worst, the part that was never any good at theory of mind–fear that they have no reasons, that they’re not torturing you only because they’re not in the mood right now, or–worse–because it simply hasn’t occurred to them yet that there’s nothing stopping them. You’re reluctant to ask them too probingly about the underpinnings of their morality, for fear that you will be the thing that causes them to realise they don’t have any.)


Tags:

#last night I was reading a blog #and realised that the blogger’s morality was so foreign to me I couldn’t even tell whether he had one #it was…unnerving #oh look an original post #arguably a follow-up to the previous reserve-the-right-to-delete post #(the following category tag was added retroactively:) #our roads may be golden or broken or lost #(I tried to find this post by looking in that tag so I guess that means I should add it)

{{post I was replying to}}


justice-turtle:

Well, it’s not scientific, but I can think of maybe 2-3 people (including me) who started out fairly far to the right and are now pretty far to the left, and one person (you) who started out left a ways and has stayed there. The rest of the people I follow whose… political trajectories I’m aware of, which is maybe a dozen or so, seem to have started out sort of… mildly leftish-centrist and have moved further left with time. Like, there’s – I know there’s a norm of teenage rebellion and finding your own path, but my impression is that wide swings across the ideological center are fairly rare and may involve some kind of conversion/aversion experience.

(Bear in mind here that I’m very depressed, so this next part, I’m probably being more of a catty little bitch than is called for. But – like, I think we’ve discussed, you tend to run into a thing where people are like “Well, nobody is born feminist/whatever, we have to learn, go easy on us?” I genuinely don’t recall if that’s ever been me saying that, and like I say I could be totally wrong, but… like, my completely unsupported impression is, that kind of remark comes more from people who were born centrist, have liked to consider themselves quite left-wing progressive, and are just finding out that they’ve got a long fucking way to go and are feeling defensive about it? Like, pulling an example out of the air, somebody says “you know g*psy is a slur, right?”, and instead of “oh shit! no i didn’t know, sorry!”, they reach more for “don’t judge me! i couldn’t have known!” it’s… like i say, i could be full of shit, but for me myself, that identity-thing of “don’t judge me, i didn’t know any better” got lost somewhere around the same time as “gayness is a SIN”. i mean, i still don’t like being seen as a fuckup, i imagine nobody does, but my mental image of people who say “nobody is born knowing whatever” is of kids who… still have that belief in their own Moral Rectitude, you know? who have never yet had to integrate into their identity the fact that they are A Person Who Can And Does Fuck Up. who feel like they need to defend the idea that they couldn’t have done any better, defend their… their honor, and that’s their go-to excuse because idk it fits their world paradigm or whatever.)

(sorry. i say “kids”. given that this conversation involves a discussion of authors younger than me having their shit together, and that you also are quite a lot younger than me, that’s probably a bad choice of words. but i’m failing to come up with a better one. :P)

again. large grain of salt. possibly a barrel of salt. or a very large crystal. a hunk of salt. i’m tired and depressed and pretty sure i’m not being terribly articulate. but that’s my impression: most people our age have started out pretty centrist, and i’d bet the ones who overgeneralize about “nobody grows up far-leftist” are included in that centrist-moving-leftward group.

Hmm. The thing is–and I know I often elide this–I don’t think I was exactly raised far-left per se. Like, there were groups (the ones that come to mind are black people and gay people) where people talked positively about them, but you never seemed to actually meet any. Trans people were mostly not on our radar, and when they were they were mostly viewed with vaguely benevolent confusion.

But I was raised left enough that when I did meet full-on social-justice folk, they didn’t feel foreign. I wasn’t exactly raised in SJ culture, but the place I was raised was…adjacent, somewhere close enough that SJ proper felt of-a-piece with it.

>>they reach more for “don’t judge me! i couldn’t have known!”<<

For me, personally, while that reaction is correlated with childhood because I hang out on the Internet more as an adult, I think the main distinction is actually speech vs text. Offline!me’s* primary reaction to conflict is fight; Brin’s primary reaction is flight. My first emotion when called wrong is anger, but given a short time (usually short enough that textual communication will inherently give it to you) the anger is overwhelmed by fear. “If I crush the opposition they’ll stop hurting me!” becomes “As far as I can tell, I have never managed to successfully crush anyone, and I have no reason to think this will be the exception. Trying and failing to crush them will only prolong the fight and its associated pain. The only way of ending a fight that reliably works for me is complete and unconditional surrender, so that’s what I should do.” (Now that I’ve spent a lot of time in that frame of mind where my cowardice can shine through, I can even manage flight reactions in offline conflicts sometimes.)

(Apparently a lot of people are more the opposite? I mean, I guess they must be, or we wouldn’t have stuff along the lines of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. In a twisted sort of way, I suppose the existence of opposite people helped me; while I haven’t managed a 100% perfect record, I learned very fast that I could avoid a lot of fuckups by staying very quiet, observing, and letting other people make beginners’ mistakes for me.)

*My legal name would be less clunky, and I wouldn’t mind you knowing it, but I’m writing this publicly.


Tags:

#it’s not really Learning to Accept That I Can Be Wrong #as much as #Learning It Is In My Self-Interest to Pretend to Accept That I Can Be Wrong #(people who are not motivated primarily by self-interest confuse me and I am often tripped up by them) #(what do you mean you’re professing [insert political stance here] because you think it’s correct) #(and not because you fear social repercussions for not supporting it or because it would benefit you personally?) #(how does *that* work?) #reply via reblog #our roads may be golden or broken or lost


{{next post in sequence}}

{{previous post in sequence}}


Justice-Turtle Icon

@justice-turtle​ replied to your post : (under a cut because I reserve the right to delete…

(having trouble getting the usual reply blockquote to work, so I’ll italicise instead)

I keep wondering if a certain type of verbally-oriented autistic is the only person who actually questions – maybe who CAN actually question – feelings and assumptions that everyone else seems to take as bedrock. :P It’s a discouraging possibility.

(also: emigrant from an overtly hierarchical society here. I can attest you still get told the problem is with you if you don’t fit in, questioning the people who have power is still dangerous, it’s only those OTHER societies (communist russia anyone?) whose different trappings on the same structure make them problematic, and everyone else insists they actually feel the way they’re programmed to. I don’t know. Neurotypicals are weird. :P)

Sorry, I’m babbling. What I’m trying to say is: apart from the specifically anti-authoritarian trappings, this all sounds startlingly familiar given how opposite our cultures are. Like, very specifically familiar in individual details. Does everybody actually live in the same sort of toxic power structure and out-group everyone else so thoroughly they can’t recognize it? I feel like that kind of thinking is awfully… like, “I am special, I see what others can’t”, kind of attitude, but (cont.)

(cont.) but I haven’t got an alternate paradigm that would still fit these parts of the evidence.

I did wonder if “the problem is with you” was too negative a way of putting it, given that the contexts I originally encountered the idea in were autism (generally a positively-connotated trait around here) and asexuality (grey area, but while some people say asexuals have equal status with straights (that is, no status), the people talking about growing up feeling like all allosexuals were lying aren’t those same people). In such cases, it isn’t the trait itself they consider a problem, just that it’s harder to navigate being surrounded by people unlike you if you don’t even know they’re unlike you, let alone how to account for it.

Part of me feels like a society where questioning your superiors is genuinely permitted is too much to hope for, and a more feasible goal is a society that doesn’t pretend questioning is allowed but then punish you if you actually do it. That would be the point of moving to an overtly hierarchical culture: not an attempt to reduce the total number or restrictiveness of rules, but an attempt to increase the number of written rules and correspondingly reduce the number of unwritten ones, and especially instances like questioning, where written and unwritten rules contradict each other. (The opposite of the usual description of hypocrisy: “do as I do, not as I say”.) That you still got everyone insisting they actually felt as they were programmed to is a bad sign for that idea, though.

Re: “I am special, I see what others can’t”, it kind of seems more like missing something, some aspect of morality that would allow for the proper sincerity…but I remember you saying something about how you used to believe you were sociopathic, and that you don’t think that anymore. Was that a similar thing?

Relatedly, a few months ago @deusvulture (who I’m apparently not allowed to ping) wrote a post speculating on ideological “hobbits”. Like The Authoritarians, the post assumes no members of the group it’s talking about are in the audience; unlike The Authoritarians, it tries not to call its subjects inferior beings who are likely to get us all killed.

The post stayed with me because my reaction to it was “damn, where do I sign up?”. Pay lip service to a given hierarchy, turn up when it’s in need of sheer numbers in ways that don’t require you to put yourself in harm’s way, perhaps use some of its dialect in a non-status-y way when casually chatting with friends, but mostly you and it ignore each other. It sounds too good to be true.


Tags:

#justice turtle #replies #our roads may be golden or broken or lost


{{next post in sequence}}

(under a cut because I reserve the right to delete this)

The hierarchy whose rule you live under is a cruel one. You can’t tell whether it’s unusually cruel–you don’t know enough about the cruelty levels of other hierarchies–but it seems to you like the hierarchs are more cruel than necessary to maintain their positions.

It’s not that they hurt you physically. Some of them take pride in never hurting anyone physically, saying physical violence is categorically worse than emotional violence. (Sometimes, when you are feeling brave (which is to say, when your anger outweighs your common sense), you point out to them that a slap hurts less and heals faster than an insult. They never listen.) Others simply reserve it for crimes greater than those you have committed (which still, in its way, buys into the idea of physical violence being necessarily worse).

Instead, they play mind games. They forbid you from acknowledging what they are. They order you not to follow orders, tell you to shun anyone who admits they did things simply because they were ordered to, tell you you should do what they say because you sincerely believe their views are correct.

They ask you if you sincerely believe their views are correct. You say yes. It takes you a while to realise you don’t actually know what “sincere belief” means, but you know what you are expected to say. You keep saying yes.

You learn to find the powerful people by looking for the people talking about how powerless they are. They continue to call themselves powerless even as they punish their inferiors for insubordination. Only serfs speak of the power they hold, a power that never seems to actually manifest. One might think the serfs were safer, and they are in that they are less able to hurt you themselves, but you soon observe that most of them will turn informant for the hierarchs at the drop of a hat. They aren’t safe to question, either.

You know that your caste is near the bottom, but not quite at the bottom, of the hierarchy. There are a few scraps of power available to you, but you have trouble using them effectively. You aren’t a very good liar, and interacting with the power structure is all about lying. Out of practicality, you emphasise the inferior aspects of your caste instead. If you don’t try to claim power, people don’t check your lies as thoroughly, and it’s easier to get away with it.

The hierarchs speak, disparagingly, of other cultures where people “know their place”. The longer you live in your twisted homeland, speaking its twisted language, the more the honesty of “knowing one’s place” starts to sound refreshing, attractive.

You aren’t sure you could bear to defect. It’s not that you “sincerely believe” the enemy is wrong–you still don’t know what that means–but you are very aware of what things are safe and what things are not. You don’t know how long it would take that safety sensor to recalibrate for a new hierarchy, to stop screaming that every word people said and every action they took was painting a gigantic target on themselves and everyone around them. You don’t know how long it would take you to stop looking over your shoulder, expecting the enforcers to show up at any moment. Maybe you would never stop. And conversely, you aren’t confident of the enemy’s rules, of how to navigate a foreign land without setting off their enforcers.

(Not to mention the purely logistical issues: if you were to defect, you would then be living in and dependent upon an enemy household.)

Still, you look. Cautiously, you peek at the closest of the cultures the hierarchs decried for having too overt a hierarchy. You try to ignore the screaming of your safety sensor long enough to get a look at them, though it is hard.

You find they are no different. Oh, they wear different colours, speak a different jargon, but they, too, portray themselves as people who fight for freedom and justice and equality. They speak, disparagingly, of your culture, where people know their place.

(You begin to suspect that the existence of overtly hierarchical cultures is a myth, is some sort of propaganda, but you know it’s possible you didn’t look far enough afield. It’s hard enough, though, to think of moving to the nearest culture. You doubt you could bear moving farther out, and you aren’t sure you can even stand to think about it too hard.)

They say that when it seems like the whole world is lying about something, you should start to wonder if maybe the problem is with you. (They say this in the context of being things like autistic or asexual, but it gets you thinking.) Maybe there’s something different about you, something fundamental, something that leaves you unable to understand the thought processes others are using.

(Nobody ever drops character, even in small groups of close friends. Sometimes, when you think the group of friends might be small enough and close enough, you drop character yourself and encourage them to do the same. They always react badly, always insist that they are not playing a part. Maybe they mean it? What would it even mean to mean it?)

A while ago, you read a book. It was a study of the enemy, a study of the alien. It portrayed itself as such, referred to the people it studied in the third person, spoke with an assumption that you, the reader, would not understand the thought processes the people studied were using, and would not look kindly upon those who used them.

And they were clearly foreign. They did speak a different jargon, associated their castes with different traits. The book treated the jargon and the castes and the thought processes as being inextricably linked. That equivocation obscured things, but you still couldn’t quite shake the feeling that you understood the alien thoughts, the alien motivations, better than your own people’s.

You aren’t sure which possibility scares you more: that everyone around you is lying, or that they are all telling the truth.


Tags:

#here is the post from my thoughts last night #though it’s not the first time I’ve thought about it #political terms tend to be very fuzzy #meaning several sometimes contradictory things at once #often not distinguishable by context #I can’t usually tell what exactly people mean when they say ”authoritarian” #but this is what I think about when they say it #oh look an original post #our roads may be golden or broken or lost


{{next post in sequence}}

tfw you want to write about why you put your writing out there, but you’re afraid to put that out there


Tags:

#I can never remember what counts as irony #but that’s certainly *something* #even assuming a do-not-reblog notice would be respected #writing it and putting *that* on top would be just as ironic-or-something if not more so #in fairness the meta-writing is *way* more insubordinate than the writing itself #(basically it’s an answer to that old question of ”why is it important to publicly acknowledge kink”) #(”not just on a society level but on an individual level”) #(”why not just stay quiet where nobody can see you”) #and of course the gatekeepers are especially ravenous around Coming Out Day #(but catching glimpses of their ravening is exactly why I’ve been thinking about this) #oh look an original post


{{next post in sequence}}

funereal-disease:

Something I’ve been thinking about today: no amount of declaring a joke “not funny” for political reasons will make it actually cease to be funny. 

Humor is a really primal thing. You can have the best, most thoughtful politics in the world and still find your funny bone tickled by horribly offensive shit. That doesn’t make you problematic. It makes you a human being with human neurology, which means what trips your laugh wire is pretty damn arbitrary and often not within your control.

Have you ever tried telling someone who’s losing it at an inappropriate time to shut up and stop laughing? It doesn’t work. That’s the human brain for you. You don’t have to enlighten yourself out of basic physical responses. 

 

fierceawakening:

This is exactly why the whole SJ emphasis on “stop finding *ist jokes funny!” baffled me even when I was a feminist.

I get that SOMETIMES a person’s sense of humor can reveal that they are bigoted, but I’m baffled by the assumption we can tell that about most people by what they find funny.

 

funereal-disease:

Yeah. Personally, I don’t mind any joke as long as I’m sure it’s a joke. Offensive jokes with an undertone of “haha but actually” make me terribly uncomfortable, but jokes I’m positive are jokes are fine. Context really matters. 

 

wirehead-wannabe:

I never got the whole “people are never kidding when they joke about [thing],” either. Like, do people who make 9-11 jokes secretly support terrorism?

 

ilzolende:

People who make 9-11 jokes probably do think taking terrorism-increasing risks is more acceptable and terrorism is less of a major problem than people who don’t make said jokes.

…I find “stop being amused by that!” to be perfectly intuitive. It’s…basic conditioning, isn’t it? If a stimulus (a bigoted joke) is routinely followed by a punishment (exposure to Discourse), one soon ceases to feel positive emotions toward the stimulus. My visceral reaction to someone telling a bigoted joke is something like “you fool, you’ve doomed us all! shit, I’d better get out of here before the enforcers arrive”.

(This means that “don’t be around people who laugh at bigoted jokes if you can avoid it” also makes sense. If they haven’t even been trained out of laughing at forbidden jokes, what else haven’t they been trained out of? (And what training might they have received instead?) If you don’t know what culture someone is from, you’re going to have a much harder time predicting their actions, and it’s often best to avoid people when you don’t know what will set them off.)


Tags:

#reply via reblog #our roads may be golden or broken or lost #this is not the first time Skye has made a post #that seems to rely on an underlying assumption #that people’s emotional ranges are much richer and more complex and more resilient than mine actually are #mostly I find reading funereal-disease reassuring but occasionally it makes me wonder if I’m incomplete #*sigh* #*shrug*


{{next post in sequence}}

wirehead-wannabe:

marcusseldon:

(Note: I may be projecting a little here, but I think it is getting at something true)

Inspired by this conversation, though possibly tangential to it.

I feel like one major point of misunderstanding between (personally good and also politically liberal) people* who push back against social justice, and social justice-types themselves, has to do with differences in their experiences due to the context in which these people live. They are responding to different life experiences. 

Keep reading

Endorsed


Tags:

#yessss #yes this #this is what I’ve been saying too #this is my *home* #born and raised #and it fucks you up to grow up somewhere being told that nobody grows up there #(and a lot of people claiming you can’t even *move* there) #(it’s nothing more than a sanctuary where people stop to rest for a bit between) #(going to and from the Real World™) #(things that are a relief to visitors seeking sanctuary get very grating with a lifetime’s experience) #(and a place can’t be hospitable to its residents if it denies *having* residents) #((the idea that everyone in a given place is first-generation is self-fulfilling)) #((if it means nobody can stand living there for longer than one generation)) #nobody could come up with a better idea so it looks like the category tag’s going to be #our roads may be golden or broken or lost

lizardywizard:

“stay in your lane” are you kidding me. i’m a california motorcyclist. i’m splitting lanes. i’m in your lane. i’m in every lane


Tags:

#anything that makes me laugh this much deserves a reblog #the humour of my people #(the following category tag was added retroactively:) #our roads may be golden or broken or lost