treat consumption

ppl criticizing other ppls media choices is like…. the most tired and not wired thing you can do. all media essentially sucks and we’re left chosing between essentially an endless amount of bad media that we construct identities around and it all strikes me as very liberal to like police people’s choices in media.

the key to consuming media is to detach yourself from the spectacle but enjoy it for what it is at the same time. i watch all sorts of bad tv shows besides game of thones, including tv shows that game of thrones critics rant and rave about, and it’s all bad on some level.

ya’ll treat consumption of media as an extension of your morality/character and not what it really is, which is a highly subjective distraction from your lot in life. stop w/ the petty moralizing tbh.

anonymous asked:

Hi previous anon here: would first like to clean some things up, as I said I have been following you for a long time and I really value your opinion so by saying you're playing into their hands I didn't mean you are intentionally doing it, I really understand your intentions. And 'Which is fucking hilarious like do you even live here?' was a bit harsh, I didn't really mean to make it sound like such a personal attack, but I can see how it does, so that's my fault, sorry. 1/2

I agree that terrorist is a term that shouldn’t just be thrown around, but I don’t understand this need to inform others about the definition of ‘terrorist’ when they are pointing out that had Lubitz been a muslim, he would’ve been called a terrorist regardless of whether there was a clear ideology involved or not. I do not get how a lot of Europeans on Tumblr are calling that ‘uscentric’. I’m saying it, a lot of Europeans outside of Tumblr are saying it, how is it uscentric then?  And again on the subject of not throwing the word ‘terrorist’ around: isn’t it kind of typical that when people are trying to call a white (German) man a terrorist when that is not really the correct word to use, that that is when we all of a sudden start to question whether we use the word too carelessly? 3/2

Hi anon, I appreciate this message. I’ll try and explain best what hasn’t sat well with me regarding how the conversation about Germanwings has gone.  While it is definitely an issue how racialised the image of the ‘Terrorist’ has become (i.e people speculating that Lubitz was a Muslim before his identity was released), I do have some multiple issues with the way people chose to make this point. Imo, pointing out the different ways a Muslim pilot would be treated by the media is not in of itself UScentric. So I would disagree with Europeans who say that- but it’s more how and why people have carried out conversations about Islamophobia regarding Germanwings that I find problematic.

1. The people I’m criticising are mainly those who demanded that Lubitz be called a terrorist, and who said the French prosecutor was obviously letting him off lightly by charging him with murder instead (because he’s white). Not so much people pointing out that, ‘well, sad thing is I doubt the media would have believed the police saying they found no evidence of extremist ties if he had been Muslim.’ 

  • As I study law, I know terrorism and murder have different and specific mens rea (’guilty mind’) elements. So I couldn’t help but feel they were derailing the conversation in an extremely unhelpful manner: Lubitz’s crime was described correctly by law, and if we wanted to talk about Islamophobia, it should be pointing out media speculation that he was Muslim or even this fucked up article claiming Lubitz was a secret convert to Islam (as if Lubitz could not be a far right terrorist). It’s like yes, it’s important to fight Islamophobia, but it’s barking up the wrong tree to fixate on demanding the prosecutor call him a terrorist to combat Islamophobia - that only feeds further into the damaging ways ‘terrorist’ has become the ultimate bogeyman, that ‘terrorist’ is the most evil label ever (rather than a highly specific type of crime) such that people accept all kinds of government encroachments on civil liberties. 
  • Further, there was the assumption that them looking into mental illness was to ‘excuse’ the pilot because of how the US media tends to paint white murderers as mentally ill. But he’s a pilot, and obviously if he did this to commit suicide, it’s very important for the aviation industry to look into it to make sure it doesn’t happen again For example, pilot psychiatric evaluations, the level of experience required in some European countries aren’t as stringent as in the US. To reduce our media coverage here (not calling a terrorist, mentions of mental illnesses) as just making excuses for him…was distorting it.

2. Even so, I feel that the talk about about a hypothetical Muslim or non-white pilot was often not carried out in a respectful manner: I encountered many blogs which were utterly uninterested in the crash until the news broke that Lubitz had deliberately crashed it. And all their posts were just ‘you bet if he was a Muslim, he’d have been called a terrorists’. That’s all. 149 people have just been killed by this man only days ago…it felt disrespectful that people only seemed interested in figuring out how to use the tragedy as a comparison rather than discussing it on its own terms.

  • Like it’d be one thing if people discussed how a Muslim pilot might have been treated by the media, BUT ultimately centered on offering their condolences to the victims and trying to remember them. Or if they centered on discussing Islamophobia in a manner that was relevant to the issue and not just a punchline- I mean there’s plenty to discuss: our fear of the shadowy Islamic terrorist is why we now have unbreachable cockpit doors, why people get molested during pat downs, why Muslim passengers doing perfectly innocuous things get unfairly harassed by airport authorities or other passengers. We’ve definitely fixated on seeing (Muslim) passengers as potential threats and forgotten that something more mundane like a suicidal and callous pilot is a danger too.  And it’s exactly what happened here: the risk assessment was a hijacker masquerading as a passenger was the most important threat to combat, and the possibility of rogue pilots deemed unimportant. I mean…there were Muslim passengers who died on board this flight to begin with. Yet I’ve seen little of this. It’s made me feel people were truly not interested in the issue, other than to make it a punchline- like there’s definitely a complex angle about Islamophobia here, and fixating on the prosecutor charging him with murder was a waste of time.
  • Why I say UScentric: I felt very often the angle was using this tragedy as a comparison for how the US media viewed it- they were imputing the fact that the US media often frames white people who kill for ideological reasons as just mentally ill onto why the French prosecutor charged this as murder instead of terrorism- it’s definitely true Europe has been affected by the racialisation of terrorists as being Muslim or Middle Eastern due to the War on Terror, but at the same time, the long history of other very serious forms of terrorism in Europe generally means even lone wolves like Anders Breivik will be referred to as terrorists in the eyes of the European media once evidence of ideological/political aims were discovered. Or others still were making the blatantly untrue assertion that the European media never calls white people terrorists- it’s one thing to say white people are given more benefit of doubt, another to baldly assert they are never called terrorists. Comments like these annoyed me because it seemed to illustrate ignorance of the dangers of far right terrorism that European countries have been dealing with. 

3. In general, these may come off as subtle nuances sure. It’s not that the broad points many US bloggers were making (Islamophobia exists, racism exists in Europe) were incorrect. 

  • But I just generally feel it’s another instance where there is little care taken to try and understand the context: a sense of entitlement to rush into an issue without listening to people affected or closer to it. And I felt the entire tragedy was treated in an extremely opportunistic way by some US bloggers: to me, it seems endemic of how non-US issues are often Americanised or treated as spectacles for consumption the way Hollywood repackages foreign issues for local consumption. Or that there is little interest in non-US issues unless it can somehow be exploited to be relevant to the US context in a very myopic way. For example, I am Chinese and during the Hong Kong protests, I was really incensed to see a US blogger accusing the HK students of appropriating Ferguson by putting their hands up- when it was because the government had been sending in agent provocateurs to cause disruptions and justify a violent crackdown. Their hands were up just so the cameras would see that- and riot police wouldn’t have an excuse to attack them. It was pretty arrogant to assume it was to do with the US. 

That, to me, is an endemic problem: people generally centering the US in a foreign crisis and applying US-centric assumptions instead of going in recognising it’s a different context. This is ultimately the type of behaviour my critique of the past few days have been aimed at, and of course not everyone who said ‘the pilot would’ve been assumed as a terrorist if he were Muslim’ is guilty of that. It’s how and why the conversations were carried out by a significant group on here that I had problems with. 

You know what is sickening about those people who make comparisons?

They often expect non-Americans to extend solidarity to them, to reblog their issues, they often like to assume that just because we speak English we must be Americans (like one blog I follow, run by a Mexican who was reblogging more on the Mexican student murders). But they won’t do the same for us, because they will centre every foreign tragedy around the US.

They will centre the genocide enacted by ISIS into a comparison about how there are fewer videos of Americans being executed by ISIS than by the police. They will reveal their shameless, staggering first-world privilege by being incapable of grasping how ISIS’ real victims have nowhere near the amount of attention that American issues do, that they think it’s fine to reduce the threat of ISIS into the killings of Westerners and completely forget the surrounding context, forget that an entire country of millions of people is overrun by ISIS. They’ll forget that as awful as it is for the Americans killed by ISIS, this is not an American crisis the way 9/11 was. This is an Iraqi crisis. Iraq is literally fighting for its soul here. They will make this into a comparison that ends up trivialising ISIS, instead extending solidarity and raising awareness about the alarming religious cleansing and genocide enacted by ISIS.

Anything that promotes the erasure of the victims, anything that centres on someone else, anything that uses another tragedy as a cheap prop or metaphor is not solidarity. It is erasure, it only helps ISIS by erasing the victims.

I’m not going to post the actual rude reply I got because I am not going to waste my time with a clearly lost cause that exhibits so much entitlement over using other people’s tragedies as props. This kind of entitlement seems like the worst aspects of US foreign policy, which takes ownership of foreign narratives and reshapes it into an image for US consumption, which treats foreign tragedies as sideshows that are only relevant if they touch directly on American lives or can serve some sort of comparison to the US. This kind of wanton belief that you can help yourself to other people’s tragedies to prove how bad you have it is nothing less than a disgusting erasure, nothing less than being so privileged you can’t even see that you shouldn’t be making these comparisons.

The way SWERFs talk about porn reminds me of the way whites talk about hip-hop. They see the medium as the problem rather than the issues that shape the medium’s content. Whites see hip-hop as glorifying or causing violence in the hood rather than describing the violence as it already is and was. SWERFs see porn as causing misogyny rather than often being reflective of the misogyny already present in society.

Rates of rape and sexual assault have been steadily falling and reportage has been steadily rising for decades. This isn’t to say it isn’t a problem, because it goddamn is, or that it couldn’t get worse because of the way we talk about these things, because it goddamn could, but that the rise of porn (with the advent of home video and to a greater degree the advent of the internet) did not cause increased rates of these heinous violations.

The issue is us, and it always has been. More than porn, the internet allowed us to peer into the heart of darkness. Whereas before, one could pretend those outside of whatever small town or insular neighborhood were more enlightened, less bigoted, less likely to do the heinous things the other residents of that region did, we now have eyes and ears on the innermost thoughts of anyone who cares to share them on every piece of occupied land on the planet. We see the horrific things politeness kept under the surface before.

Porn will get worse if men get worse, and men will get worse if it’s continued to be rewarded online for saying heinous things. Reddit is a much bigger threat to women than the general concept of pornography. Men being rewarded for bashing women, for making rape jokes and rapey comments, for defending rape and rapists, for treating consumption of porn as a competition to find the outer limits of that which one can find arousing–these are the real issues. Fixing those things solves the issues with porn. Getting rid of porn, insofar as that’s even possible, does nothing to solve those issues.

anonymous asked:

Hi! I'm a happy vegan since a while now but my mom keeps arguing with me, saying animals actually eat each other so we can eat them too. I absolutely do not agree, I try as hard as I can to refute this, but maybe you have some stronger arguments to convince my mom? Thanks a lot :)

Hey there :-) counter-arguments to that point include: 

  • We are biologically designed as herbivores (flat teeth/blunt canines, no claws, the same jaw type/motion as herbivores, we sleep the same amount as other herbivores and have similar lifespans) (x) (x)
  • We don’t salivate at the sight of blood and don’t see a live animal and instinctively want to eat it, carnivorous animals are excited by the sight of the animals they eat and automatically want to chase/kill them, humans don’t see chickens/cows and feel the same way, it only entices us when it’s prepared to no longer look like an animal
  • Meat is entirely beneficial for carnivorous animals, but humans who eat meat have an increased risk of getting cancer (especially bowel), heart disease, diabetes and are at a higher risk of total mortality. (x) (x) (x) 
  • Animals do not understand that what they are doing is cruel, they do not have an understanding of how their diet causes other animals pain
  • Animals hunt other animals in the wild, they do not contain and systematically breed them by the BILLION for consumption. Humans treat farmed animals as a product, not individuals, and that’s not natural by any stretch of the imagination.
  • Animals also engage in incest, have been known to eat their own young and their own shit, just because an animal does something does that mean it’s okay for us to do it? No, we have an understanding to know better.
  • No other animals drink the breast milk of a different species once they’ve been weaned. If you think about it, drinking milk is just plain weird.