My name is Joshua and I'll be your pilot today.
Here you'll find an abundance of political discourse and inquiry, with some news and science scattered about.
Full disclosure: Anarcho-libertarian, atheist, human rights activist, radical feminist, pro-choice acitivist, queer rights activist, trans*, civil, & indigenous rights ally, and a proud introvert.
— The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf on Eric Holder’s letter to Congress, in which Holder acknowledged that the Obama administrated has killed four US citizens via drone stroke—only one of whom was actually being targeted. Source.
Anyone who frequents these parts often will know that I’m not a big fan of blackface or its apologists, so you can imagine the stern Tweet that I sent to celebrity and singer Delta Goodrem after this little stint.
It’s so easy for people like yourself to get up on your high horse, when you have NO idea the intentions or know ANYTHING about Delta. In case you didn’t see anything else in that photo, there was a guy dressed as her. THAT’S what she said ‘was hilarious’. There was no malice in her tweet, nor was she intentionally condoning ‘blackface’.
Excuse me, but I don’t consider myself “superior to others,” I’m just not willing to excuse racist nonsense. But, I always take detractors very seriously, so let’s have a look at your argument.
You are quite right in saying that I don’t know Goodrem’s intentions, but would you like to know something?
Intentions are irrelevant.
If a person says something sexist/homophobic/racist without meaning to, are we to simply ignore it? No, because what people intend is less important as what is literally said.
Furthermore, if I don’t know what Goodrem intended, surely you realise that you don’t know what she intended, so your little tantrum about what she was actually calling hilarious is moot.
In any case, even if she intended to call the person dressed as her ‘hilarious’, why are people supposed to assume this? Do you honestly think that the black kid who was just assaulted or the black kid who’s bullied at school is going to think “Oh, yes, obviously she’s talking about that one”?
I don’t think that she intended the Tweet to be offensive, and I don’t think she was being malicious. I also think that both of those things are irrelevant. This Tweet was a vindication of blackface to her 320,000 followers and to the whole world.
This is somewhat of a contentious question, seeing as there remains an ongoing debate about cosplay, blackface, and cultural appropriation. Some people think that cosplay is reason enough to permit blackface and cultural appropriation (of garments, accessories, or cultural identities), however many do not.
As a rule of thumb, I would suggest that if there is a POC (person of colour) whom you really want to cosplay that you do so, but that you not significantly alter your skin pigment. If your cosplay is good enough everyone will know who you are, and you are sure to avoid offending people.
There are lots of things that cosplayers don’t actually do, for example women cosplaying men don’t actually grow facial hair (usually). People cosplaying Princess Bubblegum don’t actually make their costume out of candy etc. Changing the pigment of your skin is the same thing: equally silly, superfluous, and offensive.
There are contexts to be aware of, and using other people’s cultures or racial features is pretty derogatory. It denotes a certain level of fetishisation and exoticism, and in the case of blackface, honours a hideous past.
To recap: wanting to cosplay a POC is great. Using blackface (ever) is not. Thanks for the question, and if you or anyone else has any further queries, I’m here all evening.
Anyone who frequents these parts often will know that I’m not a big fan of blackface or its apologists, so you can imagine the stern Tweet that I sent to celebrity and singer Delta Goodrem after this little stint.
It didn’t end there however: Mia Freedman, who produces Australia’s premier online women’s mag wrote an article with some ‘interesting’ thoughts on the debacle. Usually I’d send her a stern Tweet as well, however Freedman is a pretty level headed person whom I really admire, so I figured I’d a different approach.
In a world where the history of blackface was different, y’know, in an alternate universe where it wasn’t used in the manner of a derogatory slur, the act of a white person dressing up as a black person mightn’t be so offensive. But we don’t live in that alternate universe, and that context exists.
If someone attended a costume party as an infamous serial killer, a notorious paedophile, or a Nazi say, people would rightly be offended. The thing is, blackface has a similar context in that the people who practised it (ie colonial whites) owned slaves whom they tortured, raped, and trafficked as if they weren’t real people.
Practising blackface honours those traditions in the same way a swastika honours the “traditions” of a certain political party. They are equally tactless.
Goodrem’s flippant Tweet rings loudly as an endorsement: “It’s okay to defame black people,” it says. Freedman’s article similarly reads as apology, but let’s think about it. Person A does something racist, celebrity B says “That is hilarious” — how is this not an endorsement of Person A’s actions and therefore a vicariously racist act?
People should be made to understand that there does not exist a situation in which blackface is okay.
Of the 41% of Republicans who consider Benghazi to be the worst political scandal in American history, 39% are unaware that Benghazi is located in Libya.10 percent said it’s in Egypt, 9 percent in Iran, 6 percent in Cuba, 5 percent in Syria, 4 percent in Iraq, and 1 percent in North Korea and Liberia.”
“Benghazi is the worst thing ever to happen” says the people who don’t even know where Benhazi is. It’s almost like it’s not the worst thing ever, and the conservative right is merely posturing for political reasons…
Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy, in case you hadn’t heard. How dare she remove those ticking time bombs from her chest, amiright? Like, hasn’t she learned by now that her body is public domain and we all get to vote on what she does with it? Sheesh, how selfish can ya get.
This is literally the best analogy to come out of this news story. And then there’s these assholes…
“Disappearing Palestine”, from Visualising Palestine.
NSA Declassifies Internal Training Document: “A Guide To Internet Research”
At over six hundred pages, this .PDF is not something I’d consider light reading, but it is incredibly interesting.
It draws analogies between the internet and Greek mythology, and at one point the sassy author takes aim at IE7 and Microsoft:
“Frankly, after five years, you would think Microsoft could do better than come up with a browser that basically mimics the best features of Firefox and its other (much smaller) competitors.”
Read the whole document here.
View high resolution
An updated summary of America’s charming foreign policy record. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States of America has:
1. Attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
2. Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.
3. Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
4. Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
5. Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
In total: Since 1945, the United States has carried out one or more of the above actions, on one or more occasions, in the following 69 countries (more than one-third of the countries of the world).
If you’re American and aren’t aware of why your government isn’t popular with the rest of the world: here is why!
When American politicians talk about the dangers of the Middle East, and people insist on the hegemony of America, this is all I see.
America is a major producer in the arms trade. They sell weapons to the areas that they then destabilise in the name of “democracy” and “peace”.
And the icing on the cake: America tries pretty hard to make sure non-American folks don’t have nuclear weapons, but I’ll ask you, how many countries have used nuclear armaments? Just one. America.
Since WWII, America is the most guilty of destabilising the world.
It’s an established fact that Donald Trump is a stain on the human race as this victim shaming Tweet will attest to, however it’s now apparent that the xenophobia has finally rotted away 100% of his brain.
From the article:
Ms Hewson described Stuart Hall’s crimes as “low-level misdemeanours” which “ordinarily… would not be prosecuted”.
Mr Hall admitted 14 charges of indecently assaulting girls, including one aged nine, between 1967 and 1985.
I’m usually all for discussions about consent and rape culture, but when someone suggests that the age of consent be lowered specifically to ensure paedophiles and sex abusers aren’t convicted of sex crimes, well I just have to write a blog post about it.
Perhaps the 9 year old girl who was raped might feel that maybe it wasn’t a misdemeanour, y’know?
“He’s not just gay. He doesn’t just like men. He is like Oscar Wilde gay… like Lord Byron gay,” she told a shocked audience.
Claiming the 59-year-old father of three would be “happier” out of the closet she went on to say: “I feel bad for him; because I know he would be much happier if he could just come out.”
In my mind Magaret Cho is a well dressed comedian whose inventive standup I usually enjoy. I also really like how honest and unapologetic she is about her open relationship with her husband. But there is never an excuse for outing someone, especially in such a public way.
Sure, Travolta probably isn’t in a situation where he is going to be physically in danger if these accusations (because that’s all they are) are true, however not everyone is so lucky.
All this does is reinforce the notion that being ‘out’ is somehow mandatory, and that outing people is okay.
How public one is about one’s own sexuality is a private matter, even if one is a celebrity with a colourful history, whose orientation has been the plaything of the media for years.
I am not a fan of Travolta for a number of reasons. What I care about is the repercussions and the implications: that it’s scandalous to be homosexual, that gay people have to be ‘out’, or most dangerously, that it is somehow in any way acceptable to ‘out’ people without their prior consent.
— L.R.Knost (via thatkindofwoman)
(Source: hopefullyraw)
View high resolution
Professor Stephen Hawking has joined the academic boycott of Israel “based upon his knowledge of Palestine & on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there.”
In another stride forward in the campaign for boycott, divestment & sanctions against Israel, Hawking pulled out of a conference hosted by President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem.
“The situation is like that of South Africa before 1990 and cannot continue,” Hawking said after Israel’s three-week attack on Gaza in 2009.
NEWSFLASH: THE SMARTEST MAN IN THE WORLD REFUSES TO ENDORSE WHAT ISRAEL IS DOING.
I dare someone to acuse Stephen Hawking of being anti-semitic for calling out Israel’s apartheid. As if people needed another reason to be thankful for Prof. Hawking.
[Reproduced verbatim] the WHOLE entire white race should not sit there and say, “omg my ancestors were so terrible”. But everyone should just agree SLAVERY IS WRONG ON EVERY RACE, COLOR, AND GENDER. just own up to the fact that slavery happened; and should be stopped so it never happens again in any country.[This comment was removed for brevity, however it is relevant and insightful and you should read it here].
[Reproduced verbatim] ……blah blah blah. Enough of this shit. The only way to move on is to FUCKING MOVE ON. You have to WANT progress. Man fucks over man. history over and over and over. So honor your history- yes- tradition is a wonderful thing. But slamming the faults of generations past on new generations is vengeance and the world will not benefit in this way. NO ONE is benefiting this way. I see whites, blacks, reds, and yellows in the poverty pile so no one is over the other. You want to fight for your cause? Change the battle strategy. Don’t stop at rights for one color. Think outside your box. Start thinking about the HUMAN RACE.
I have a lot to say about these two twats and their stupid opinions, so I’m going to try and keep it as brief as possible.
1. By telling the descendants of slaves to “move on” you are attempting to erase the cultural and personal histories of over twelve million people.
2. You are failing to recognise that the privilege white people enjoy is directly correlative with that of the despotism historically imposed on slaves.
3. Is everyone who has every been personally, or their culture historically “fucked over” by men supposed to simply ignore the import of those events simply so that you can enjoy your privilege?
4. “Thinking about the human race” includes doing such things as recognising slavery as a problem. “Colourblindness” is inherently racist and you are doing nothing but add to that phenomena.
4. The descendants of people who owned other people as property have a moral obligation to recognise this, white or otherwise, and where appropriate should work to change the racist culture that still persists today.
Now, if you please, take your racist, privilege supporting, slavery apologising bullshit opinions and put them where they belong — in the 17th century.
(Source: howtobeterrell)
