you know what would’ve been, like… super cool to see in su? (i’m sorry for clogging the tag btw, i just have a lot of thoughts.)
the crystal gems becoming the symbols of a new gem revolution.
they’re spoken of only in whispers. no one mentions them in public. but everyone knows of them. if they have to be mentioned, it’s in a disdainful, angry tone. but oh, in private, it’s a different story.
they speak of the rose quartz whose love for all things was so strong that she faced down a diamond and won. (the lesson = “the diamonds are not invincible. they are not perfect. they are not gods.”)
they speak of the pearl who took up arms and proved she was as strong as any quartz, regardless of what she was. (the lesson = “we are not defined by our gems.”)
they speak of the garnet, the first fusion, impossibly strong and loving, who should not have existed but did. (the lesson = “the lines between us are not that thick. we are not so different from each other.”)
they speak of the bismuth who made weapons instead of buildings and who equipped a deadly army. (the lesson = “even the talents you have because of your gem can be put to any use.”)
they speak of the last amethyst of earth, who would never know anything but freedom, but who might come to them, someday. (the lesson = “one day, we can all be as free as the last amethyst.”)
and the crystal gems learn of this. garnet realises how much she matters to so many gems out there. her mere existence is the proof that the diamonds are wrong. pearl sees a legion of pearls who are just waiting to take up the sword alongside her, who refuse to be docile captives. amethyst realises that she herself is HOPE. that for an entire revolutionary movement she is proof that things can be better.
because how much would that mean to amethyst? she has a very low opinion of herself, but just by living as herself she’s become the image of hope for an entire species. she meets the revolutionaries on homeworld, starting with the famethyst, and realises… holy shit?? these people don’t even KNOW her but they love her BECAUSE she’s her. and she tells them a bit about life on earth because they’re curious, and she decides - she’s gonna keep being hope. she’s gonna keep fighting and being herself.
after the crystal gems return, word gets out.
they speak now of the peridot who defied yellow diamond and insulted her to her face, choosing life over duty. (the lesson = “change is coming. more understand the truth every day.”)
and they speak of the hybrid, a being neither gem nor human but somehow greater than both, a bridge between two worlds. (the lesson = “we are not so different from them, either. they can be anything. so can we.”)
and the crystal gems make them a promise - “we thought we were alone, that we couldn’t take the fight further, not after our armies were destroyed… but we have hope now, and we’re coming back for you.”
(the lesson = “the revolution is about to begin.”)
the Most Ironic Thing is that the art hoe movement was about queer people/poc and appreciating inexpensive art/supplies and the fact that artists dont fit in a singular box but now “art hoe” is associated with straight white girls with copics and kankens
Now I have always been a very big fan of unconventional art movements. Not only do I appreciate how those art movements have influenced what we see today, but the history that prompted them is rather revolutionary. Today, I want to appreciate the women who aren’t as well-known as the great Frida Kahlo. This post is more focused in the late 1910’s, to the 1930’s period. It is to honour some of the out-of-the-box women that I admire so much, from all sorts of movements. Here we go!
Helen Lundeberg (1908–1999)
Not just a formally taught and talented artist, but Lundeberg was actually one of the founders of what would be known as the Post-Surrealism art movement, later leaning to abstraction in the 1950’s. She was not only talented, but extremely intelligent, earning a place at Stanford University for “brilliant children.” Now while I said I would focus on the lesser-known artists, Lundeberg is a rather more famous one. However she is a tough one to leave out. She was especially famous during the 1930’s. She was in charge to create multiple murals, and her exhibitions (including her early solo exhibits) were very successful. It’s interesting to see her works evolve during her life, yet remain distinctly recognizable as hers.
Above: Portrait of Inez, 1933, by Helen Lundeberg (1908–1999).
Sophie Taeuber-Arp (1889-1943)
Certainly a woman ahead of her time, Sophie Taeuber-Arp’s artwork as a painter, sculptor, textile designer, furniture, interior designer, architect and dancer all scream “modern woman.” She studied different art forms, primarily textile art, formally in some areas. She was quite heavy in the Dada scene, yet her Constructivist works are probably her most recognizable. Her use of colours of her geometric forms are what draw the eye. Taeuber-Arp’s talent and hard work earned her a position teaching weaving and other textile arts at the Zürich Kunstgewerbeschule (Zürich University of the Arts). She was a woman that appreciated art in all its forms, and many appreciated the way she presented them. In fact, her flexibility and talent is appreciated today, as she is, in fact, the only woman on the current series of Swiss banknotes in Switzerland.
Above: Oval Composition with Abstract Motifs, 1922, by Sophie Taeuber-Arp (1889-1943).
Marguerite Zorach (1887-1968)
Another intelligent artistic lady on the list, Marguerite Zorach became interested in art at a very young age. She, luckily, was blessed with very supportive parents that encouraged her to study everything related with liberal arts. People generally don’t get as unconventional as Zorach really was. Influenced by friends such as Picasso and Matisse, she is naturally recognized for her Fauvist work. Even her husband commented “I just couldn’t understand why such a nice girl would paint such wild pictures.” It may sound like he didn’t approve, but her husband (William Zorach) loved the way she stood out from a crowd. While she settled her “wild” painting side and became more focused on her family, she was titled president to the New York Society of Women Artists. Throughout her life Zorach experimented in all kinds of art media - even making clothes. You can certainly tell the different influences and evolution of her works. Because of this she received mixed criticism throughout her artistic years, yet her works are remembered today.
Above: Death of a Miner, 1930, by Marguerite Zorach (1887-1968).
Pan Yuliang (1899-1977)
Truly a woman to differ from the mainstream (and possibly my favourite on this list). Pan Yuliang is considered China’s “first woman in the country to paint in the Western style.” Unlike many of the woman included in this list, Yuliang did not come from a family of prominence. Just at the age of 14, she was sold by her uncle to a brothel and forced into prostitution. In an amazing turn of events, however, she was noticed by a kind wealthy man who brought her freedom. Becoming his second wife and adopting his last name, he sponsored her education and allowed her artistic abilities to flourish. Because of her talent, fast learning, and hard work, she was accepted in not only the Shanghai Art School, but also numerous schools in Europe. This even included Italy’s Roman Royal Art Academy. Pan Yuliang wasn’t particularly loved by all in China, however. Her works caused some outrage in her home country, and she eventually settled in France, where her paintings were more appreciated.
Above: Detail of Self-portrait, 1936, by Pan Yuliang (1899-1977).
Aleksandra Ekster (1882-1949)
Another abstract woman to appreciate, Russian painter Aleksandra Ekster uniquely used her skills for design purposes. Because of her extraordinary designs, she was required to work in numerous fabulous cities, from places in her home country of Russia, to the romantic Paris, France. Thanks to her prominent and wealthy family, Ekster was free to study art formally, later graduating from Kiev Art School. Her life was the ultimate art fantasy, as she organised meetings at her studio for Russia’s “intellectual elite.” This included artists, writers, and poets. While she never stuck with just one movement, but varied in many revolutionary avant-garde art movements of her time, her style is completely unique and consistent. She is known distinctly for her fashion designs, which were not only completely wearable, but also very memorable.
Above: Costume design for Romeo and Juliette, 1921, by Aleksandra Ekster (1882-1949).
In the oft-cited campfire scene near the end, Wyatt tells Billy, “We blew it.” That line has been taken as an indictment of the American counterculture, which, like so many protean revolutionary movements, started self-destructing once it gained enough power and prominence to effect real change. One can read it that way. But the line strikes me also as a more personal sort of confession, an admission that they have ultimately succumbed and bought into their own outlaw version of the capitalist rat race—the idea that a man is not a true success unless he has accumulated enough money to stop working and take it easy.
It might at first seem attractive to say things like “Marxism can’t explain everything and although it is useful in its particular domain it’s not enough to explain the experiences of xyz, etc.”—but there’s a few things that people forget or don’t realize when they say that.
First, people mistake Marxism for a specific set of conclusions. When we realize that certain issues like racial or national oppression cannot be strictly analyzed through the lens of some pre-existing categories within the Marxist “canon,” we may be tempted to say that Marxism has reached its limit here. I must insist in contrast that, while i certainly feel many of the conclusions typically associated with Marxism are correct, all of these conclusions could actually be wrong and Marxism would still be “true” in the sense that it is most fundamentally a revolutionary way of approaching problems and enacting social change.
Second, what is particularly insidious about the idea that Marxism “doesn’t apply” to this or that is the broader implication—which is quite consistent with postmodern theory in general—that different “domains” of life require us to use different approaches, different methodologies, different systems, etc. Wittgenstein, for example, was one of the people who most rigorously argued this, and he held that different domains of life were playing different “language games” which each had their own logic. One conclusion that follows from this is that no domain of social life is really poised to evaluate the validity of the others or appeal to universal truths. This can seem like a compelling line of reasoning, especially since it aligns with the dominant ideology of late capitalism. But it begins to fall apart when one realizes that, to even be able to distinguish where different domains of social life lie and what separates them requires a “global” logic by which you make the distinctions. Proponents of the notion that there can only be “local” theoretical and political systems tailored to the specific conditions of different “domains” do not at all escape appealing to universals; they simply leave the universal principles upon which they base their conclusion completely unsaid, which i feel is extremely dangerous. At least with the liberal humanists, although they simply assert universality from on-high and base their notion on the most vague of abstractions, you know what their assumptions are.
So the question is, what do you hold to be universal? Because without universality, the notion of specificity literally has no meaning.
What do i think? Well, i think Marxism as a theoretical and political practice does have boundaries, but it is able to evaluate where its own boundaries lie utilizing certain principles which are universal. To be precise materialist dialectics contain statements about the very nature of existence which are of necessity global. The fact that materialist dialectics are the product of a concrete practice—namely, taking the standpoint of proletariat in the realm of theory—does not jeopardize their universal “reach.” In fact, i would say that the proletariat, a force which occurs at the point where the various contradictions of society fuse, is particularly poised to access the universal.
Further, the boundaries of Marxism as assessed under the framework of materialist dialectics are larger than many people assume. Remember that Marx does not simply presuppose social class and then analyze society through that lens. Marxism is ultimately interested in the social formation as a whole and in particular in the transformation of that social whole. Marx arrives at the concept of social class as a result (not as the point of departure!) of the study of the social formation in its entirety (which is also why he really only began to concretely articulate the concept of class near the end of his life). So, Marxism is immediately relevant whenever we are talking about the revolutionary transformation of social life. And i am convinced that it remains the best tool for catalyzing revolutionary change there is. After all, it is not a coincidence that the most successful revolutionary movements around the globe have either been explicitly communist or have at least tried to appropriate certain elements of Marxism to suit their purposes.
Long story short, Marxism as a whole “package” may have limits, but they are broader than most people assume, and within Marxism there are universal principles, without which it is impossible to even distinguish what is specific.
The whole Black Brits/Africans vs. Black Americans is utterly unfounded. I’m not sure if Blacks from London are jealous or something but there’s no other place in the world that produced the caliber of Black conscious civil rights leaders and movements the way America did. It’s not up for the debate, if we’re talking about numbers, the list of Black revolutionaries and movements from America are way higher than anywhere else, not only higher but massively successful as well (I can name about 25 from off the top of my head rn). This is so much so, that African natives would often study under African Americans, such as Professor William Leo Hasberry who was the teacher of Nigeria’s first President Nnmadi Azikiwe. African politicians and intellectuals would often come to America and study at Black founded Universities for education. Speaking of which the literacy rate amongst Black Americans is higher than anywhere else.
The truth is, all this argument trying to belittle African Americans have been bait traps because when you switch the narrative to African Americans, all of a sudden everyone can get on board, and we forget that for centuries Arabs enslaved East Africans and that populations of Arab nations consist of East Africans that are descendants of slaves. We forget that slaves were also sent to other parts of the world such as the Caribbean…
White supremacist don’t divide Blacks by nations, a Black is a Black to them and we all from Africa, yet on Twitter, as concentrated of a forum it is, we choose to divide ourselves & most of the hate I see is from Africans and Black Brits. I’ve seen really disturbing posts generalizing Black Americans as being ignorant of foreign politics. I post all this to say that these twitter beefs are extremely annoying (and not even accurate on most levels) and cause further division and is a distraction that is exactly what makes the enemy happy because when we divide ourselves it’s easier for them to get their way.
This is how many Black revolutionaries were killed and how many movements fell. Stay woke and don’t further divide yourselves. Coming together as allies kills the enemy who seek to keep all people of African descent down. All of our aims are liberation ✊🏾
Frida Kahlo is a Mexican surrealist painter, whose paintings often had strong autobiographical elements and mixed realism with fantasy to explore questions of identity, post-colonialism, gender, class, and race in Mexican society. She drew her main inspiration from Mexican folk culture and painted mostly small self-portraits, which mixed elements from pre-Columbian and Catholic mythologies. As a child, she became disabled after contracting polio, and at age eighteen was seriously injured in a traffic accident. The injuries sustained in the accident included an iron handrail impaling her through her pelvis, which caused her pain and medical problems for the rest of her life. Prior to the accident, she had been a promising student headed for medical school, but in the aftermath had to abandon higher education. Although art had been her hobby throughout her childhood, Kahlo began to entertain the idea of becoming an artist during her long recovery. Kahlo was mainly known as Diego Rivera’s wife until the late 1970s, when her work was rediscovered by art historians and political activists. It is estimated Kahlo painted between 150 to around 200 paintings during her active years. By the 1990s, she had become not only a recognized figure in art history, but also regarded as an icon for Chicanos, feminists, and the LGBTQ movement.
The thing is, capitalism has never been reformed ‘peacefully’.
Reform movements which have formally disavowed violent means - from the Civil Rights movement in 1960s America, to Attlee’s Labour government in 1940s Britain - have only been historically successful because mass, organised, revolutionary movements of the politically disenfranchised outside of the formal reform movement have forced those benefiting from the status quo to cede concessions to non-violent, often middle-class, reformist leaders. Malcolm X, the Socialist Party of the USA and the Communist Party forced the American elite to come to the table with Dr. King; the syndicalist and communist trade unions in post-War Britain made opposition to Attlee’s NHS and limited nationalisations foolhardy.
Those who preach non-violence as a strategy rather than as a flexible tactic fatally mistake capitalism for a rational, logical system which plays by its own rules and respects human life.
The West still doesn’t understand
the evils that haunts mankind since the emergence of modern ideologies.
Although Burke criticised the development in France during the Revolution, we never learned the
lessons he wished to teach us. Instead we replaced his wisdom with forgetfulness of
the worst atrocities ever faced by mankind.
In the early hours of 17 July, 1918, the Romanov family, three
servants and their doctor were herded down into the cellar of the Ipatiev house
in Yekaterinburg. They had been told that they were going to take cover from
artillery from the approaching White Army. They put on their clothes and
gathered some belongings and the Tsar carried his sickly thirteen-year-old son,
Alexei, down the stairs.
They waited in the cellar for a while, before a group of
armed men came in and read their sentence. Death. The Tsar was then shot
several times in the chest and he fell down dead or dying. For the rest of them
the gruesome butchery had just begun. Alexei, Anastasia, Tatiana, Olga and
Maria were not killed by the first hail of bullets. Wounded and terrified they
cried out in agony before they were executed with bullets, bayonets and the
butts of pistols and rifles. One of the murderers recalled that the floor was
slippery as ice from brains and blood as they waded in to kill the children. It
took 20 minutes before they were all quiet, but as they carried the bodies out
it was revealed that two of them were still breathing. The children were then
stabbed until dead. The bodies were plundered of valuables and the soldiers cut
off the fingers of the Tsaritsa to remove rings. All of them were cut up, put
in acid and dumped in a mine shaft and a shallow grave.
Thus ended 300 years of
Romanov dynasty. But of course, for Russia, the slaughter had just begun. At
least 20 million people were killed by the USSR, and communism as a whole is
responsible for killing at least 100 million people. It is the single deadliest
ideology in the history of mankind.
The left gets away with murder
Here’s a death toll for communism around the world, according to the Black book of communism: 65 million in the People’s Republic of China 20 million in the Soviet Union 2 million in Cambodia 2 million in North Korea 1.7 million in Ethiopia 1.5 million in Afghanistan 1 million in the Eastern Bloc 1 million in Vietnam 150,000 in Latin America 10,000 deaths “resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power.”
The left also has a long history of domestic terrorism in the West. The Red brigades, Red Army Faction, Weather Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army to mention a few.
Exempt from scrutiny Unlike followers of revolutionary ideologies on the right, it
is quite possible to call yourself a communist without any repercussions in
your personal or professional life. It can even help you in your career, especially in Academia. Many famous Swedish people in politics, media, sport, and culture are un-repenting communists. Members of a Marxist-Leninist party even. Many more are just slightly reformed and constantly apologetic, often hiding behind a thin veneer of restraint which is let go as soon as something in society upsets them, and they immediately call for totalitarian and violent measures. The online world has proven a perfect outlet for their urge to purge, as they hound political opponents, engage in mischaracterisation, threats, and calls to violence. Western society has an inexplicable tolerance for these leftist views and ideas, even when it takes violent expressions.
It’s easy to think this is just something relating to communism or anarchism, but the above examples often come from liberals too. And they also have a history of getting away with murder. Between 1793 and
1794 the Reign of Terror raged across France. Robespierre and the revolutionaries
did what so many revolutionaries would do after them, they killed anyone who
they didn’t like. Most famously Robespierre and his thugs killed the
aristocracy, but in fact 72% of those executed were peasants and workers who simply disagreed with the regime. In modern day, another example is the Western liberal support of the Arab spring which has been pivotal in crashing the
Middle East into yet another violent rampage.
Remains of 20,000 poles murdered by the Soviet Union
We just want change.
And kill anyone who opposes it
Revolutionaries kill people. The revolution is in itself
almost always responsible for worse atrocities than the regime it seeks to
overthrow. Solzjenitsyn claimed that in the 80 years prior to the Russian
revolution – a period where one Tsar was
assassinated, there were many assassination attempts (one in my own country,
Sweden, in fact), and there were widespread revolutionary movements – only
about 17 people a year were executed. The Cheka, however, executed without
trial more than a thousand people a month in the first years after 1917. He
continues to tell us that if you would average the amount of executed a month
up until the height of executions by Stalin in 1937-38, about 40,000 people
were killed every month. He rightly wonders how the west could make an alliance
with such a horrible regime. How was the Soviet Union better than Nazi Germany?
In fact, it wasn’t.
But the revolutionaries aren’t just to be rejected for their
blood lust. If we simply look at the murderous aspect they cannot be understood.
The question becomes a simple argument of “how could this happen?”. The really
important thing to understand is how mankind can develop and improve
society, without destroying itself in the process, and how we can maintain that
which serves us even when we have forgotten how it serves us. This is the point
of view that Burke argued in the Reflections on the Revolution in France. He meant
that the reason that the French Revolution would be so disastrous was that it
was founded on abstract concepts that ignored mankind’s complexity, the wisdom
which hides within tradition, and the intricacy of human society. It also
ignores the weakness of men and our inability to grasp everything, but our
willingness to think that we do. Herein lies the hubris of utopian thinking and
ideological fight for power of the societies that have grown more organically
over the centuries. The left is a living example of the Doning-Kruger effect,
if you will. Too stupid to understand that it doesn’t understand. I mentioned the liberal support of the Arab spring previously, and it is a prime example of how overthrowing functioning nation states for abstract ideas can lead to extreme problems. Remembering Burke commenting on the French Revolution, it is easy to see history repeating itself, but this time in the Arab world:
“Can I now congratulate the same nation upon its freedom? Is it because liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate a mad-man, who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell, on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty? Am I to congratulate a highwayman and murderer, who has broke prison, upon the recovery of his natural rights? This would be to act over again the scene of the criminals condemned to the galleys, and their heroic deliverer, the metaphysic knight of the sorrowful countenance.” (Reflections on the French Revolution. The Harvard Classics)
Remember who we are. Or perish. The alternative to these modernist ideologies is a state based not around an ideology, but around fair and tested principles of law, and a people and their geographical location. In other words a nation state for each people created around the self interest of that people as a whole, and represented by themselves.
We have not yet managed to free ourselves from abstract utopian
thinking. And it is important to remember that it is not just the revolution that kills, that is just an eclipse in
the blood lust fed by the urge to kill that which does not fit the revolutionary world view. Man
has always killed, but when he kills for abstract ideals there is no limit
to the extent of the murder. The breech against the abstract idea can occur at
any time, in any generation, and in any person. No one is ever safe.
The limits of man’s wisdom should prevent us from any too
radical idea. Anything that changes society greatly in too short a time.
Today’s Western society is rife with abstract ideas that are said to improve
life for mankind. The ideas of globalism, open border, multicultural societies,
the dismantling of the family are obvious abstracts that are major changes to
our societies, that history repeatedly tells us could lead to disaster. But
beyond those things, we will be facing technological advances that are beyond
our current field of vision. We are facing these new challenges without having
understood anything from the violence of Modernity and the 20th
century. I believe that is a reason for concern and potentially the end of
Assata Shakur once said: if ever there was a decision between armed struggle and social programs (like free grocery programs, free health and education programs, free communal/local crime prevention programs etc), a revolutionary movement should always choose the social program approach.
Social programs represent an experimental view of the world we all strive for whereas an armed insurrection in the immediate present wouldn’t.
This isn’t to say that violence is completely barred – especially in terms of action and self defense against fascists, criminals, injustice, oppression, etc – in the mean time; only that a revolutionary movement shouldn’t put all of its efforts being armed to the teeth, ready to mobilize, and start destroying the state and capitalism at the drop of a hat when they can spend their time investing in social projects for the people’s immediate benefit while spreading ideals, goals, and principles for now and the future.
Armed struggle is an inescapable consequence for any revolutionary movement, however the result would be always be failure if the people don’t know what they’re fighting for and if they solely rely on the well-read militants for deciding what’s right and wrong.
A small movement that can’t defend itself but can understand itself is a seed that can grow; but a movement that can defend itself with no self understanding is a hollow shell.
I'm kinda curious why do you hate yoi? Fandom is weird as hell but what's so wrong with the series alone?
IT IS THE FANDOM THAT PROVOKES THE MOST HATRED IN ME.
The Yuri on Ice fandom has utterly ruined the show for me, and honestly, if the fandom didn’t harass real life figure skaters, hallmark executives, and people who don’t like their precious show, all with their battlecry of “well you’re just homophobic”, then i probably would’ve just dismissed yuri on ice as “ok.”
It was mediocre.
A fanservice-fueled mess of romantic cliches, awkward figure skating animation, and sexy butt shots.
Let me lay this down, alright?
Its writing is disjointed, and its characters are either one shot characters or terribly inconsistent, like I still don’t know if Victor is a sociopathic simpleton or just a juvenile, shallow egocentric adult who just doesn’t know how to coach AT ALL.
Or if Yuri is confident or NOT confident.
We never saw ANY reason for him to suddenly be confident in himself, other than he’s sexually attracted to Victor, and Victor is sexually attracted to him, and this for some reason culminates in a sudden increase in talent.
Victuuri as a relationship is also rather poor, which is BAD since the whole series literally hinged itself on it.
It’s based off a drunken encounter that failed to be endearing to ME, because I was wondering why the fuck a stripper pole is present at a black tie formal event banquet.
I also don’t find Victor’s reasons for being attracted to him compelling.
What, he was ballsey while drunk? He skated kinda nice in a youtube video?
Or he just wanted to fuck the shit out of him?
Like…ok, fine. That could work.
Except it didn’t, because Victor never went into that shit at all.
Yuri didn’t even remember it.
And what, they developed a bond while training?
SO WHY DIDN’T WE SEE IT?
What is there to like?
And even if we did see it, look at the characters.
Let’s ignore canon relationships, and look at them as people.
what is there to like about Yuri Katsuki?
That he’s shy and “sweet?”
If you made him female, he would be the least interesting moe shoujo harem chick ever seen.
You would absolutely not like him if he were, say, Shinji Ikari, nervous and unsure of himself in times of crisis.
People like Yuri for only a few reasons, and they’re as follows:
He’s a stand in for them, a gay stand in so they don’t have to be threatened by a cute anime girl.
And he’s shy and flustered and uwu soooo cute, but also sexy and assertive and a power bottom, so I’m told.
These are not traits that stand on their own. They are entirely dependent on an active base of fangirls with no desire to see said character doing anything else or developing.
He’s DULL in other words.
And so is VICTOR.
He’s the ace who can do anything, but chooses to be interested in the guy with low self confidence.
Wish fulfillment. That’s what that is.
Sexy guy takes interest in the “nobody.”
Oldest trick in the book.
And if your argument is that the characters don’t need to be good…uh, yes, they do, because it’s a “sports anime,” purportedly…
Sports anime NEED to focus on either characters and their relationships, or the sport itself.
Yuri on ice fumbled both.
We saw Yuri and Victor vaguely talk about stupid ass shit that revealed nothing about themselves as people…and drop sexual innuendo.
Then we had some bloated individual character drama that either got dropped from the main plot or was simply boring.
Like Sala and her brother?
That weird guy with the fucked up mascara and his angst over his bitchy ex girlfriend?
Those two people I don’t even remember, the Pewdiepie lookalike?
Seriously, Yuri on Ice could’ve been really, really good if it had cut some of the extra characters.
Made Victor and Yuri more like PEOPLE, and not puppets that existed solely to sell some yaoi fangirl bait.
And if Yuri Plisetsky and Otabek were the main couple, yeah.
The thing is, anon, that these things don’t make it the worst anime ever.
I’ll say that liberally.
Yuri on ice isn’t the worst anime ever.
I liked parts of it.
Mostly Yuri P, Otabek, and JJ. I thought JJ should’ve had more of a role, he was talented and his skating was daring, that was a good dynamic.
But why did I really hate this anime?
BECAUSE IT HINGED ON VICTUURI.
A BORING COUPLE OF ANIME STEREOTYPES THAT ARE ONLY APPEALING-
Because they’re gay.
I can guarantee you that if one of them was female, ya’ll would hate it.
And if you’re saying, ok, but it’s revolutionary because it chose to make them both male, that’s a good thing, isn’t it animentality?
It would’ve been revolutionary to have a real story.
Hinged on competition.
And actual anxiety, not anxiety that comes and goes according to when the writers feel like putting it in there.
Panic attacks, nausea, inability to perform…and not YURI fucking crying and then suddenly being perfectly able to perform right afterwards simply because Victor…
SAID SOMETHING REALLY STUPID.
Yuri’s “anxiety” is used as a romantic plot device.
It’s an excuse for Victor to comfort him.
It magically vanishes whenever it doesn’t need to be there.
But my point is…
That Yuri on ice could’ve built up a relationship between them…one without the sauna scenes, without the sexy posing, without the sexy lip touching and ass groping and stupid fanservice touching.
It could’ve built it slowly.
and then the last episode.
They could’ve kissed.
And then it would’ve excused all of the absolute mess that was its story, and its characters.
If they had chosen to make it SEEM like a conventional sports anime instead of hyping it up as gay from the start, then i could’ve forgiven anything else.
I could even forgive its creepy ass anon hate flame warring fandom.
But they didn’t.
They chose to give us two guys sort of kissing, and then having the plot change NOTHING.
They chose to give us a teasing wedding proposal that didn’t seem like one, since Yuri never said yes, and they don’t wear their rings in promotional art.
Nor does Yuri actually WIN his stupid metal.
They gave us a dog in the hospital and a lot of back hugs.
Mediocre anime, anon.
I wouldn’t hate it just for being mediocre…
If its fandom didn’t so actively lead the charge against “homophobes,” acting like their fujobait is some kind of revolutionary of the LGBT movement, the spearhead that ends all homophobia.
Love on ice isn’t plagiarism.
Your anime is just WEAK.
It’s imitated the work of others, and then claims ownership of that work, calling anything even vaguely like it plagiarism.
It claims domination over all forms of lgbt media because it doesn’t “Sexualize” even though the first episode has Victor’s ass in our faces. Even though everyone inexplicably decides to strip and show off those oiled abs for all of us.
It tells me that this honest review is nothing but homophobic.
That by noticing sexualization, I am sexualizing gays.
It says that because I don’t like the show for fetishizing a gay couple, for touting it as an icon of gay media when it didn’t even have the guts to refer to the two of them as a “couple” and chose instead to have Kubo Mitsuro leave it as “ambiguous” that I am some kind of irrational beast who just doesn’t like gays.
I hate yoi.
And let me be candid with my followers, too, the new ones, who didn’t, perhaps, know about this.
I hate yuri on ice.
Not because it’s implied that Yuri and Victor have a relationship.
But because it’s implied they have a relationship.
And yaoi fangirls, ah, they don’t care.
They masturbate with their feelings, remember? As long as the guys are hot, they’ll claim LGBT activism.
They’ll stress how important it is, how special it is, that Yuri on ice is successful (ignoring the fact that they made it successful, AS IN they, the fetishizing young women audience exploited in the past by many other forms of fanservice).
And that…cannot be torn apart from the show.
I cannot judge the show separately from the fandom.
It is a part of it, it IS the show.
Without its fandom, what does it have to offer?
Look at Free!
What happened to it?
Now compare it to snk, what do you see?
Snk has an apocalypse, monsters, a fight for human survival, the depths of the human will.
What does Yuri on ice have?
A meandering story with shallow problems and sexy guys being cute for a camera.
Some corporate-cut standards box full of shit that’s been done before, just not in a gay way.
Open Letter to the Organisations Red Guards Austin and Tjen Folket
Communists Must Oppose All Forms of the Patriarchal System Within Political Organisations and Condemn Violence Towards Women Through Self-Criticism and Exposing Its Perpetrators
Rape is one of the vilest tools available to the heterosexual patriarchal system under a bourgeois society to coerce and ‘fix’ women & non-men who do not correspond to heterosexuality and attempt to mount a resistant against the violence perpetuated against them by men.
Therefore it is one of the most sacred duties of a communist to not only directly and openly oppose this socio-economic system of violence aimed at women & non-men, but also carrying it into practice and upholding the Maoist slogan of “destroying the old world to a build new one” – ensuring full support and protection for women in their struggle against heterosexual patriarchy and their own liberation.
There can only be one answer to rape: absolute condemnation, no right for excuses, purge of the guilty individual of any political responsibilities, and more importantly ensuring that the victim is protected and the rapist is denied any form of access and is barred forever from participating within the organisation.
A comrade of Tjen Folket (Serve the People – Norway) has come forward to denounce another member of the political organisation for having engaged them in an act of non-consensual intercourse (rape). Opposed to applying the principle of investigation and combating this violent crime, Tjen Folket chose not to defend the victim but the rapist itself, resulting in the suspension of the victim from the organisation while the rapist continues to occupy a role within Tjen Folket.
Failure to isolate predators who occupy positions in Communist organizations and parties only serves patriarchy, opening women and non-men comrades up to the possibility of continued sexual violence on the part of the perpetrator. Protecting victims is not enough in situations where the perpetrator occupies a position within the Party or organization, it is imperative that sexual abusers and predators are isolated, exposed, and genuine efforts are undertaken by the organization to prevent the repetition of this and all male-chauvinistic behaviour.
The disastrous effects of this failure have manifested in many organizations, such as the New Communist Party- Liaison Committee, leading to their ultimate disintegration. Not only is this attitude anti-revolutionary and more appropriate of a bourgeois party, the evident lack of concern and respect towards a victim of rape is absolutely disgusting and unfortunately common problem within leftist organisations (regardless of ideological inclinations) due to the majority of its members being men who believe themselves above self-criticism.
But not only should Tjen Folket, as a whole, be condemned for its defence of a rapist, Red Guards Austin should also be condemned in no different manner for not positioning itself against a political organisation that had no quarrels in defending a rapist – simply put, inaction is approval. To continue to defend Tjen Folket “pending an investigation” as Red Guards Austin has done, only constitutes a reflection of bad gender practice, a failure to uphold proletarian feminism (this “pending investigation” doesn’t seem to be conducted at all, and led by male leadership of the organization). Allowing matters to slide, and anti-revolutionary actions to happen without any form of criticism is what Mao Zedong defined as “liberalism”, and it is fairly surprising how an essay written in 1937 continues to be necessary to be exercised within political organisations as if nothing has been learned ever since to combat the heterosexual patriarchal system.
The only path a genuine revolutionary communist organization can take when patriarchal violence rears its ugly head within its ranks, is expulsion. For organizations to pursue “restorative justice” campaigns, at the current level of organizing in core imperialist countries such as Norway and the United States, only reproduces liberalism and amounts to a dismissal of the victim’s lived reality. As the Center for Marxist-Leninist-Maoist studies wrote in their piece On Standards of Feminist Conduct: “Revolutionary organizations in the US are not states making decisions on punishment and rehabilitation, which would operate according to different standards. They are voluntary associations that must make a call – generally based on limited and conflicting verbal or written accounts – on how to respond to an incident, taking into consideration the need to advance the struggle for women’s emancipation, to develop women as militants and leaders, and to protect the organization’s work and reputation.”
To quote Enver Hoxha’s speech to local Party organizations in 1967: “The entire party and country should hurl into the fire and break the neck of anyone who dared trample underfoot the sacred edict of the party on the defense of women’s rights.” Or as Mao Zedong put it, “Women hold up half the sky.”
Men who carry the banner of violence and assume themselves to be above others can only be answered with revolutionary violence and the strictest, boldest opposition to their way of thinking. Rapists, sexual abusers, predators must all be met with a crushing hammer, evicted from political organisations, and be denied any form of support – there is no mercy for these people, only condemnation.
Failure to uphold a proletarian feminist line only weakens our movement, and is a major reason behind why communists of the past six to seven decades, especially in imperialist countries, have massively failed in establishing themselves in a Party, much less a Party that seriously challenges capital or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
We may not be a political organisation of any form but the members of thesovietbroadcast stand with the victims of heterosexual patriarchy and ardently oppose political organisations that have no issue in defending rapists and not denouncing rapists for the sake of political unity and “not meddling in others’ affairs”.
Our hope is that organisations such as Red Guards Austin and Tjen Folket come to perform self-criticism and correct their extremely wrong positions, admit they committed serious anti-revolutionary errors, and provide a proper apology to the victim not only internally but in the public sphere while taking the appropriate measures to remove the rapist from the organisation and creating mechanisms so that in the future victims are protected and their attacker removed automatically. We also call for communist and proletarian feminist organizations worldwide to apply pressure to all organizations that defend, harbour, or hold a liberal and anti-revolutionary line towards rapists and sexual assault within their ranks.
Those who imagine that a communist organization with proletarian feminist politics at its core can be built or that a revolutionary proletarian feminist movement can be developed today from the ground up – without first confronting the pressing issue of male chauvinism in the existing organizations and circles, including determining the proper guiding principles and policies to do this – are thoroughly deluding themselves. This view amounts to the liquidation of the struggle for women’s emancipation and a kind of economism that refuses to address the real political question at hand of the involvement of women in organizations.
‘Avenge Fred Hampton! Carry Forward the Struggle for Working Class Revolution! ’, event sponsored by the Revolutionary Communist Party, Committee to Commemorate Fred Hampton, and Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, Chicago, [late 1970’s]. Thanks to Dennis.
March 14, 1917 - February Revolution: Tsar’s Train Stopped by Revolutionaries, Petograd Soviet Issues Order No. 1, No Saluting Officers Off-Duty and All Weapons Must be Given to Elected Soldiers’ Committees
Pictured - Power to the people! The Red Guards of Vulkan Factory, Petrograd.
Revolutionaries halted the Tsar’s train on March 14 as it approached the capital from Mogilev, the military headquarters where he had been staying. Inside the city, street-fighting continued between revolutionaries and the few soldiers and policemen who had remained loyal to the Tsar. There were already two distinct revolutionary movements in the city claiming to hold predominance. One was the Provisional Government, formed from members of the Duma. The other was the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, composed mostly of radical Mensheviks and Bolsheviks.
That day, the Provisional Government had ordered the soldiers to return to their barracks, lest the situation get too out of hand. Skeptical of the Provisional Government and particularly of head deputy, Mikhail Rodzianko, a conservative with ties to the Tsar, the Soviet issued it’s own Order No. 1: all weapons should be turned over to elected committees of soldiers, and they should only follow orders from officers who could be trusted to follow the Revolution. Military discipline would be maintained, but democratized, and soldiers should no longer salute their officers when off-duty, and refer to them as “Sir,” rather than the traditional “Your Excellency.”
Today in history: May 29, 1944 - Maurice Bishop born.
Bishop was a Grenadian revolutionary in the New Jewel Movement, who became Prime Minister of the People’s Revolutionary Government of Grenada with the 1979 revolution in Grenada. Bishop was killed in 1983 in an internal struggle in the revolutionary movement. Days later, the U.S. took advantage of the situation to invade Grenada and overthrow the revolutionary government, returning Paul Scoon to power, who had been appointed Governor General of Grenada by the U.K.’s Queen Elizabeth II in 1978.
(image: Maurice Bishop with Nicaraguan Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega and Cuban leader Fidel Castro)
Via Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back!)
trying to build a revolutionary movement and restricting yourself to (in good circumstances) 16% of the population? that can never work.
Is working with people from other identity categories sometimes fraught, frustrating, and difficult? yes, absolutely it is. Are we committed enough to liberatory struggle that we’re willing to do the frustrating, hard work of helping people help us? If you aren’t willing to do this work, you aren’t a revolutionary, you’re a fucking hobbyist.