Clalec shipper use the culpability of Alec, who feel responsible for Jocelyn’s death, as a confession of love are so pathetic. It’s obvious that the only reason why he did this was because he felt responsible. Period. Do not try to invented feelings where they’re not. THERE IS ONLY MAN (bc in case you haven’t noticed, ALEC IS GAY like 100 pourcent and even more) and it’s MAGNUS (BADASS-HIGH WARLOCK OF BROOKLYN- CAT EYES - PERFECTION) BANE
The problem is not PoC from America trying to claim solidarity with non American PoC, it's non American white people trying to absolve themselves from anti-Blackness and other forms of racism, which they still wield in "their own" countries. The discourse of "Not all racial systems are the same the world isn't the US" is too easily turned into "We're not racist" because us-centrism is harmful, if only because it allows Europeans to ignore their own unique forms of anti-Blackness and racism.
1. It is a problem when POC from America claim solidarity with non-American non-white people in a manner not to provide support, but to oversimplify global oppression as all being from “White supremacy”. Because it leads to blindness about other forms of oppression they may be culpable in (US imperialism, American cultural hegemony, the fact that the US has bases parked all over the world). On a bigger scale, everyone in developed countries or wealthy socio-economic brackets should recognise their privilege and culpability in economic exploitation whether or not they are “white”. I am a diasporic Chinese, and I have seen how diasporic Chinese or wealthy Asians of other ethnicities abuse Indonesian and Filipino domestic workers.
2. Anti-blackness while serious, is not the only form of racism that exists. Plenty of intra-European, intra-Asian and intra-African racism exists, and Americans often obscure this or trivialise these conflicts as “not being about racism, just politics”. We are already being erased- I have been told loads of times Japanese can’t be racist to Chinese because we are both East Asians, when that’s not true. Japanese imperialism during WW2 was very much coloured with Japanese racial supremacy. People think the Bosnian genocide was just “Serbian politics out of control” just because both oppressor and oppressed are European. That “not all racial systems are the same because the USA is not the world” is absolutely essential to debunking this reductionism. In Latin America, people not considered white in the US are absolutely culpable in discrimination against indigenous people, in addition to anti-blackness. In Europe, there is definitely cognisance of a lot of faultlines, and I will say in some ways it is even more complicated than the US because the colorism against non-white people and anti-blackness ON TOP of centuries-old prejudices against various different European peoples, against Jewish people, classism, regional rivalries etc.
3. Also, I dislike how some bloggers go on and on about how much European colonialism damaged us and give so little air time to the most RECENT crimes that need awareness. Yes, European colonialism changed, brutalised and made us who we are today, but decolonisation for the past 70 years happened. So, a lot of very recent atrocities are inflicted by OTHER non-white people with institutional power. The Indonesian massacre of East Timorese, the Rohingya discriminated in Burma, Chinese oppression of Uighur minorities? In the Middle-East, Sunni and Shi’a sectarianism? ISIS? In Africa, inter-communal violence like the Rwandan genocide, separatism between North and South Sudan, the Boko Haram extremists in Nigeria who kidnapped hundreds of school girls? For many ethnic Chinese, the wounds of Japanese war crimes like forced prostitution and the Nanking Massacre (which the Japanese government continues denying) hurt far more than the Opium Wars, and it’d be much appreciated if these things were talked about equally often as how European colonialism oppressed us. And yet a lot of people like to portray us as this happy family, when “POC” solidarity in the US sadly does not quite exist in non-Western contexts.
I'm a Jewish woman who converted who converted before I married my husband. And unfortunately, ever since Trump got elected, I'm getting bullshit over "you can't complain about the white supremacy. Ivanka Trump is Jewish!" Which makes me really want to scream "that bitch is NOT Jewish and does NOT speak for us!" Which I know is wrong.. I have no right to dictate who is not a member of the Jewish faith.. but it just gets under my skin.
It is really dangerous to say that Ivanka Trump isn’t Jewish - this sets a bad precedent for all converts. If you convert to Judaism, you are Jewish, period. I would want that for her because I would want that for you and any convert. People’s Jewishness shouldn’t be invalidated in this way.
But it’s obviously reasonable for you to be angry. xtians are allowed to be a diverse group of people who have different beliefs and are from different backgrounds with different experiences - Jewish people are not allowed that same consideration. xtian supremacy and antisemitism prevent us from being seen as a group of people who share a religion and culture but not necessarily the same desire for justice.
Jewish people will always be allowed to complain and combat white supremacy - we have been and currently are victims and survivors of it. It doesn’t matter if Ivanka Trump is in a position of power - the majority of us are not. We use what opportunities and tools we have available to us, including the vote. After African Americans, Jewish people were the next highest demographic to vote against Trump. Goyim don’t get to then turn around and call all of us culpable or complicit.
I’m really sorry this is happening to you Anon. Sometimes it helps to just know that you’re not the only one who’s struggling through this and that it definitely isn’t your fault. None of us have to explain or defend Ivanka Trump just because she’s also Jewish. Upholding oppressive systems is inexcusable, and the majority of us are working alongside other oppressed groups to dismantle them.
Alone at Sea: my thoughts about the subjects rised in the Fandom Discourse™
“Mutual abuse” doesn’t mean nothing. Abuse = imbalance of power, in this precise case at the favor of Jasper, therefore an abusor (her ”Just say yes” in JailBreak is a way to pressure Lapis Lazuli into a fusion, and consent given under pressure isn’t consent at all). The adequate expression here is “mutually toxic”: as Garnet analysed this relationship, “They’re really bad for each other” (Jailbreak).
That doesn’t imply that Lapis isn’t dangerous (she is) but please don’t say she’s “not a blameless victim”. It’s a - very awkward and out-of-place - victim blaming. Nobody deserves to be a victim. As Lapis said herself, she “broke Greg’s leg, stole the ocean” (Alone at Sea referring to Ocean Gem), even tried to drown Connie and Steven… but these were desperate acts, as she was trying to escape. This is not related to her being abused by Jasper. Dissociate those two facts.
However, her behavior towards Jasper was indeed terrible, as she trapped her into Malachite, hurt her and enjoyed that, but she aknowledges that it wasn’t healthy, feels guilty, and tries to change (”I was terrible to you. I liked taking everything out on you. I needed to. I hated you. It was bad!”). She also self blames herself, which is a typical abuse survivor coping technic (”After what I did to Jasper…” in Same Old World), even if she wasn’t the one to initiate this horrible relationship. And she actually acted wrong at this moment, but at least she wants to move on.
Jasper, on the other hand, pressured her into this monstruous fusion of “hatred and distrust” (as described by Garnet in Chille Tid) which was a quite obvious metaphor for rape and/or abuse, admits she has been stalking her (“
I thought I’d never catch up to you”, “I’ve been following you“ in Alone at Sea) and always physically coerces her by violently grabing her arm, clasping her hands around her or making intimitading moves towards her.
Don’t fall for Jasper’s gaslighting, victim blaming and honeymoon phase strategy. It’s clearly written and narratively coded as manipulative and abusive tactics. We’re supposed to understand that her actions are deeply nasty.
In any case, I’m horrified when some people of the fandom write things like “Jasper called her a monster and Lapis answered nothing, so it must be true!” Lapis already self blames her, because she’s aware of her unhealthy behaviour, and also because it’s a typical victim coping technic (”I’m terrible” in Alone at Sea= an inconscious way to justify what happened, given that she sees herself as someone unworthy). But Jasper uses this culpability - justified or not - to force her back into their previous fusion, which was a mess. It’s not okay.
That’s why Lapis Lazuli answering “No” is so important. Consent is vital. Rejecting unhealthy relationships, even when you do miss them (because yes, it’s a thing - that doesn’t mean that the relationship was great), is capital.
That’s, basically, what the Crewniverse is trying to teach us. “It’s very important to me that we speak to kids about consent. That we
speak to kids about identity. There’s so much more I have to say about
this.” (Rebecca Sugar, at the San Diego Comic Con, 2016).
So @heimishtheidealhusband wrote the world’s most amazing meta about homospectrality. I highly recommend reading it, because they were spot on, and also just for some sweet, sweet education. I am also hoping they’ll be writing a post TAB meta soon about how it all played out but I thought I might try my hand at using some of the understanding I got from them to explain something in TAB that bothered me.
Ok, so, after Sir Eustace is killed, Holmes gets very angry and shouty toward Watson. And I kept asking myself, why is he so angry? On one hand, I know that Sherlock hates it when he can’t save people (I think it’s why he prefers to investigate crimes, he can manage bringing justice to people but it’s too much for him emotionally to try to protect living people all the time) but it still seemed to me like there might be something else going on, he is specifically angry about Watson’s belief in ghosts.
When Watson first brings it up in the train carriage, Holmes mocks him and states, “There are no ghosts in this world save those we make for ourselves.” If ghosts are taken to represent the threat of homosexual impulses, then this line could be read as stating that homosexuality is only monstrous if we make it out to be that way, the danger is in believing it’s dangerous.
Later, when they’ve gone into the house to find out what’s happened Holmes charges Watson with guarding the escape route of the window, but in Holmes absences, Watson succumbs to his belief in the ghost and leaves his post. Watson can’t stand guard against his acceptance that homosexuality is monstrous. Remember, this is all in Sherlock’s mind, this is a reflection of Sherlock’s subconscious belief that John chose straight marriage as an antidote for his feelings for Sherlock. John’s closetedness is his fear of the specter of homosexuality, and it causes him to abandon his guard.
Holmes shouts at Watson, “There are no ghosts!” “There is no reason to fear homosexuality!”
Lestrade: “You really musn’t blame yourself you know”
Holmes: “No you’re quite right.”
Watson: ”I’m glad you’re seeing sense.”
Holmes: “Watson is equally culpable, between us we’ve managed to botch this whole case.”
They’ve managed to botch their whole relationship with misunderstanding and fear.
Watson: “I saw the ghost with my own eyes.”
Holmes: “You saw nothing you saw what you were supposed to see.”
Watson: “You said yourself I have no imagination.”
Holmes: “Use your brain such as it is to eliminate the impossible in this case it’s the ghost and observe what remains which in this case is a solution so blindingly obvious even Lestrade could work it out.”
Sherlock is angry that John has given in to seeing what he was “supposed to see”, to choosing a “normal life” with Mary. But if the fear of homosexuality were eliminated, what obvious solution would remain? Well, even Lestrade has probably worked out that they belong together.
Further, several people have already pointed out that Sir Eustace is a mirror for John. I think Sherlock’s anger, beyond that he thinks John is afraid of his feelings for Sherlock, is that Sherlock feels by giving into that fear, John has actually put himself at great risk. Just as Sir Eustace was a victim of the Bride, so John is in danger from Mary and it’s the danger to John that Sherlock really can’t handle.
I don’t mean to imply that Sherlock in real life has been ready to run off with John if only John were out. Obviously, Sherlock has many layers of his own hang ups to work through, and since this is all in Sherlock’s head anyway, it is equally possible to level the accusations at Sherlock himself, that he allowed his homosexuality to be made into a specter and it his fear that has botched everything.
Made this list because I think it helps me collect my thoughts on what I saw this year and figure out what these movies meant to me and I really like lists. This year’s films are so powerful and wide and varying, it’s kind of mind-blowing. Every movie on this list knows what it wants to say and is able to say it in beautiful and concise statements. I’d say that every one is probably one of my favorites of all time. And there’s so many I didn’t get to see!
I actually originally ended up writing way too much so i just took mostly blurbs from what I wrote and put em together, except for the last one, so they might not even make any sense. It’s not a ranked list, I actually think a lot of the time ranking just takes away from actually talking about them.
Let me know what your faves are too! Watch more movies 2K14~
THE WOLF OF WALL STREET
Fucking Scorsese. Knows exactly what each shot needs, a whip here a fast forward pan there, and knows when to hold back and let shot speak for itself (country club scene!). Sinks it’s teeth in from getgo. Film understands that to really hold these people responsible it has to make us feel what the pursuit of power is like: primal + blinding. Has to make us culpable. Distills thrills and dangers of allure and addiction right onto the screen into one huge punch of a film. Intoxicating and important.
Like watching a great pop song: fresh, full of youthful energy, ephemeral, but revels in the moment. Gets how transitionary periods in life feel like, when you’re trying to figure out the person you’re going to be, when you’re trying to figure out how to be happy socially, creatively, and financially. Modern day, but feels ageless in silvery digital black and white as French New wave film (lots of Truffaut) scores move it along. One of the sweetest movies about a female friendship, and the special bond and sadness of best friends in general.
INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS
Singular, purposeful and separate from any other Coen film. Asks what artistic instinct is worth in cold world that might never recognize it, may never care. About how loss can be a thing of utter isolation, incommunicable. Losing someone means losing something inside you too, and film interested in trying to get just what that thing is. Title says it all, it’s about what’s on the inside. Sad but maybe one of the most hopeful Coen films (outside Raising Arizona + Hudsucker Proxy maybe.
+ hilarious. Adam Driver scene had me and my brother in stitches in the theater
THE WIND RISES
One of the best explorations of the beauty + inherent selfishness of artistic pursuit. Visually stunning, saw it on huge screen @ Lincoln Film center and animation just sings. Ends up being Miyazaki’s bittersweet meditation of his own life and work, if it was worth it all, if it means ultimately means anything. Places these feelings into the highest stakes, Jiro Horikoshi creator of Zero Plane @ the height of WWII. Never backs away from unsavory aspects, never glorifies, but reminds us why we’re so obsessed with creating in the first place.
Plus casting Hideaki Anno, person who has always been self aware of his role as artist, as Jiro is perfect
THE ACT OF KILLING
One of the wildest things I’ve ever seen in a theatre. Film ended and I was physically shaking as audience sat in silence through all of the credits. Comes from a place of the deepest empathy. Easy to simply pull back and vilify, but there are no heroes or villains. Vilification makes them caricatures, takes away power of their crimes, and distances us from them. Film is more interested in the circumstances that lead to people committing evil. Never seeks to pass judgement, just to show the whole picture of a person, the whole context, socially or otherwise.
Letting warcamp generals recreate their executions somehow also becomes about how we use art to alleviate our anxieties. Either as a way to further escape from our demons or to face and understand them.
So many scenes where I couldn’t believe what I was seeing was really happening, that it could be really captured on film. Somehow seems like this is exactly what movies are made for.
Woah. Feels like Shane Carruth figured out a different way to tell a story, a shorthand that. It’s cyclical and smooth, about how the smallest things can affect things in far reaching ways and what happens when we’re stripped of all the things that have shaped us into who we are. And he did everything himself, directed, acted, edited, scored, designed the poster, self distributed the movie, even held the fucking camera in the scenes he’s not in. It’s singular in every sense of the word. A film that never stops moving towards something new and of it’s own.
Amy Seimetz is lovely
SHORT TERM 12
This is the one that really got me. About a short term care facility that fosters children in difficult circumstances, kids who may gone through terrible abuse and trauma. It handles the subject with utmost care, with beautiful shots, patient pacing that knows how to let scenes breathe, and acting that just rings so true.
The actual circumstances aren’t something a lot of us have ever gone through but the film gets at something at universal. You don’t need to have gone through the same circumstances to understand trauma. How can wreck you, can reduce you to nothing. It can ruin all facets of your life and sabotage every relationship.
It can get so bad and you just want to be ok, for it to go away, to get better. And to get better you need to let it out. But how can it when you can’t even tell anyone about it?
How do you put it into words? What happens if you tell someone what’s going on inside and the words that come out aren’t able to convey just how awful it feels. The enormity of it. Because when something is so constantly painful you need to make sure they understand that. You need to make someone understand that it’s larger than anything to you. That it’s reduced you even being able to be a functional human being. You need people to understand because if they don’t then it’s like it never even mattered. It means the thing that has wholly consumed you can just be brushed away like it never even mattered.
And that’s terrifying.
You become afraid of even the possibility of healing. The very idea that you could ever be ok again is terrifying because you need the pain you’ve felt really mean something. What does it mean if it can just go away? If you can just be ok again was it ever really that big a deal anyways?
It has to matter.
You become obsessed with it mattering. You can try to hide it, to make it seem like you’re ok on the surface, but it becomes the only real thing in you. You become nothing but your trauma. It has to matter. But when it becomes the only thing that matters, everything that you are doesn’t.
You disappear. You become broken.
That’s why this movie is important. Because Short Term 12 gets what it feels like when you’re that desperate and isolated in yourself. When reaching out to a person becomes the most difficult thing and it’s unimaginable that you could just be ok.
It knows that talking about it has power. When you let it out your trauma loses its power. And it knows that when in stops consuming you it still matters.
It knows that there are people that want to understand, that want to get you through the toughest ordeals. Other people go through trauma but that doesn’t mean that yours matters any less. It always matters. Instead of running away from it these people make it matter by wanting to be there for you. Sometimes they’re a partner sometimes a short term facility employee but there is always someone that will care about you. They want to help because they know what it’s like to be at your lowest. It doesn't mean that it’s the same trauma, we all go through pain but your pain will always be yours and it always be real.
And It knows that it takes real strength to be able to tell someone how broken you feel. Trusting someone comes the highest of stakes because there’s a chance that your words mean end up meaning nothing, changing nothing, never mattering. It’s the biggest risk of all. It knows how hard that is and believes that even at your lowest you can be strong enough to be ok again. Because sometimes by letting someone know what lies in the depths of your heart comes true healing.
Short Term 12 is a film about long term trauma, dealing with it and not letting it define you. It’s a small film that feels bigger than anything, because it is. And it means the world to me.
Hmmm. Just thinking about it but I think one major failure of the social justice discourse here is the conflation of white privilege with Western privilege, when describing global power. White privilege certainly reinforces Western privilege and some aspects overlap, but they are not synonymous.
Because this effectively leads to a removal of the culpability of non-white people who still do benefit from a Westernised upbringing and therefore, access much better treatment then people from the country of our ancestors. Or the culpability of non-white people who are citizens of wealthy developed countries in benefiting from the global inequality engendered by European colonialism via modern economic exploitation. It’s disingenuous for the culpability of US foreign policy to be framed as being something only white Americans are responsible for where American soldiers and Americans in the highest level of the US government are not solely white Americans, even if the majority of them are. Sure, let’s recognise how US imperialism has its origins in white supremacy, but it’s wrong to suggest that US imperialism today is an enterprise where only white Americans participate and benefit from it.
This is because I see a lot of international issues getting framed as just “white privilege” when I’d say it’s more accurately described as Western privilege at work. To pretend that millions of us, who have in some ways, donned the trappings of our colonial masters because of our Westernised upbringing, have not become “part of the empire” is a lazy abdication of our responsibility in benefiting from structures of inequality. We may not benefit as much as people of European-origin, but we do benefit and often at the expense of people outside the Western or developed world.