#rhetoric
In his keynote address at the International Festival of Authors, wildly successful and powerful agent Andrew Wylie, in his latest public salvo of anti-Amazon rhetoric, compared the retail giant to Islamic terror group ISIS. This may seem like it crosses the line, but it’s certainly not out of character, especially when you look at the public history of Wylie’s statements on Amazon.
In2013: “Amazon and Bashar Al-Assad, have way more in common than anyone in the publishing world would admit. And both of them collude with the US Government!”
2012: “Amazon wants to knock the publishing industry in the head with a shovel, tie it up, drive it to the top of the Fiscal Cliff, and push it off.”
2011: “Make no mistake, we’re facing a Fukuskima-esque catastrophe, and Amazon is the one buying up all the lead underpants.”
2010: “If it was up to Amazon, the entire ocean would belong to BP and the Chilean miners would rot underground. Free Assange!”
2005: “Amazon has too much ambition. And they want to blow up ALL the levees.”
2001: “More like Amazon-Quaeda.”
1996: “Make no mistake, there’s only one mail bomber you need to worry about. And that’s Amazon.”
1980: “The goddamn Russkies have nothing on Amazon. At least communism is morally good in theory.”
April 10, 1970: “You won’t have to look far to figure out who really broke up the Beatles, and her name ain’t Yoko.”
1950: “That’s right, I’d rather Russia have the bomb than those godless heathens at Amazon. You can quote me on that,”
1942: “(something wildly racist about Japanese people)”
1929: “Al Capone is like Amazon, but with scruples!”
April 15, 1912: “Amazon’s buying stock in icebergs right now, mark my words.”
1888: “If my time in England taught me one thing, it’s this: Amazon is as courteous to its vendors as Jack The Ripper was to his.”
1773: “If you told me that tea was sold by Amazon, I’d dive into the harbor, scoop it up, and throw it back in again.”
August 24, 1572: “Huguenots? Sounds an awful lot like "Amazon”.“
1095: "To quote the Pope, Amazon is a Seljuq-Turk-like distributor.”
218 BC: “Amazon doesn’t need drones. It’s got elephants, and it hears the Alps are lovely this time of year.”
Pleistocene: *grunts and gestures that say “fuck Amazon and the mammoth it rode in on”*
“save the children” is an alt-right dogwhistle and I really need y’all to accept that
Oh so the newest dog whistle we are to view is dangerous is… “Children should be protected”
…. Do yall just stop and think? Like what can justify yourself?
The idea behind protecting children is to protect society’s most vulnerable, what then motives you? Other than to out right say that children are not as vunerable as adults of certain demographics. Certain demographics that are just able and intelligent as any other. If thats the case then you truely haved warped your prespective and then have to ask yourself, is what I believe leading me to rational conclusions?
“Won’t somebody think of the children?” is a textbook example of an appeal to emotion, one of the most blatant of logical fallacies. Specifically, it’s an appeal to emotion which relies on whichever moral panic is hip, happening and groovy at the moment. In the 50s we had (among others) the Lavender Menace and the Red Scare. In the 60s we had hippies. In the 80s we had the Satanic Panic. The 90s gave us a fresh new iteration of “gays can’t be teachers.” Now we’ve got panics over the existence of trans people and critical race theory and antifacism.
“Won’t somebody think of the children” is literally the basis of the F*urteen W*rds, you pair of wet socks on a cold day.** It is the call to action which points the white supremacist and the fascist toward queers, POC and Jews, among others.
It’s not just an alt-right dog-whistle, but it IS an alt-right dog whistle, in much the same way that the existence of green apples does not disprove the existence of red ones.
Ifyou don’t recognize and account for things like the very basic appeal to emotion fallacy, and we do, I think it’s fairly clear who is approaching things rationally here, bud, and it ain’t you.
So yeah, bud, that’s totally what is being said here. To react the way you did is to admit it’s your emotions being spoken to, because if it was your logical brain, you’d be able to go “oh, hunh, yeah, I can totally see how people would phrase their appeals that way if they were trying to get me to disregard any sort of critical thinking and jump into action at their command, therefore, when I see such an appeal I shall have to be very careful to not go off half-cocked but to instead treat these arguments much more carefully.” If you’re not aware that yes, the alt-right uses this specific appeal to emotion in order to manipulate people, and not just them but “gender crits,” pro-censorship movements of all stripes, and Q-Anon, among others, then you’re gonna get taken in by it.
It is possible to be rationally concerned for the welfare of children without using the appeal to emotion to demonize minorities and surf from election to election on moral panics like a lot of politicians do, but that’s not what this post is talking about. This post is literally talking about the fact that the alt-right does use this tactic in order to make people abandon rational thought and do what they’re told.
Sucks that you’re so vulnerable to that logical fallacy tho, that you attack someone for reminding you that it exists and is frequently used in modern politics. Best of luck with that, there, pal.
** I ain’t spelling that out and making it even vaguely searchable on my Tumblr.
“wow, so the newest dogwhistle is (insert innocuous-sounding thing here)?” yeah its almost as if thats how dogwhistles work? theyre SUPPOSED to sound completely fine to those who dont know what’s going on to provide plausible deniability, thats the entire point
We’ve featured Ayumi of X-Blade before… but I wanted to compare the protagonist to a recent hero of the video gameworld.
“Let Me Solo Her” is a highly skilled player who volunteers to carry players with one of the hardest boss fights in Elden Ring (The latest game from FromSoft, creators of Dark SoulsandBloodborne) through the summon system.
So yeah, if you’ve seen fan art or an image of this dual wielding hero - that’s why, that and his displaying the opposite of the notorious “git gud” mentality.
“Sometimes the lag between the host and myself is too much so I get killed instantly sometimes, or miss the crucial dodge timing on Malenia’s waterfowl dance,” he says. “I would like to express my apology to those I have failed.”
But, why what is most compelling to me is his explanation for the signature attire he wears while doing this amazing service:
“It is a running tradition of Soulsborne games that the naked players are the most powerful beings in the game,” he replies. “Why wear armor if you don’t plan on getting hit at all?”
This is pretty much the explanation we’ve heard many, many times before: that various female protagonists who wear outfits like that of Ayumi - because it actually aims for the stated goals (as well as the general benefits in video games such as increased stamina regeneration).
It’s also only vaguely viable because this is a game built around death being a low stakes event, and thus making the consequence of such a flex where the maximum risk is mild embarrassment and disappointment in yourself.
The notion of it being a wise idea within a fiction where the consequences are death or life changing injury… because you’re sure you’re badass
Also like… dude has definitely got way better head protection that we see on the usual bikini badass fighting fucktoy - which is part of why he’s featured here despite being truly an empowered man.
-wincenworks
Today in the overlap of classic comic books and “male writers have female characters explain their ridiculous costumes are good for women actually” we have two classic pages from Emma Frost, aka White Queen (who we’ve previously featured been slut shamed for a costume male creators put her in) giving a ridiculous diatribe about how the costume is sexist but that means it’s empowering and is her armor actually… in a way that’s so convoluted it breaks the Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo.
But why does Emma wear that ridiculous outfit? Did legendary X-Men writer Chris Claremont have complex thoughtsonfeminism, sexuality and social dynamics? Was it a symbol of power in the era it was created? You can probably guess the answer is: No. Not even a little bit. The opposite of that.
The actual origin of the outfit is that in the 1960s, there was a super popular, super edgy (for it’s time) TV show called the Avengers and it had an episode A Touch of Brimstone in which super spy EmmaPeel infiltrates a club of debaucherous millionaires (trying to re-enact the legendary Hellfire Club) by posing an ultra elite, submissive sex worker, “The Queen of Sin”
(By the way, if the actress looks familiar and you can’t quite place her - that’s because the last time you saw her she was probably saying “Tell Cersei.. I want her to know it was me.”)
There’s more homages in there but yeah, after shamelessly copying content from a popular television show, Claremont then realized it was absurd even in that context and rather than reflect or revise, felt the need to put in this ridiculous warble about sexism in favour of women actually, if they just have the will to use it for their own advantage.
This is one of many reasons it is very difficult to have patience with people who insist that there’s actually good explanations and a lot of important symbolism in these things - because the symbolism is almost ways just misogyny and horniness with extra steps.
- wincenworks
P.S. That before someone rushes in to let me know Emma is evil at this point of her character development - the issue here is not whether she’s good or bad, it’s that the story is showing her beliefs as functions and has given her advantages over the other evil women. It’s not portrayed as a delusion of the evil, it’s portrayed as a truth that only the evil are willing to exploit.
Edit: I have received a couple of messages advising that Emma’s monologue was penned by Ann Nocenti, which creates a fun complicated dynamic given their history working together and Claremont’s history of sharing opinions. Further commentary to follow, but thank you to the people who reached out.
Post link
So the first look at The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, specifically this magnificent set of plate armor that has been made for a very badass looking Lady Galadriel has provoked some… eh… I think the professional term is “engagement” ? (Almost all of it positive, but of course there’s a select minority trying their hardest to appear relevant and failing to a comical degree)
Of course, they’re absurd as someone has already pointed out it could be inspired by the historical artwork depicting the armor of Joan of Arc and frankly, if you’re not in love with that blend of practicality and femininity in the fluting, the layering of plate and chainmail, and the adornment to emulate a delicate necklace then I don’t know what to tell you.
This is the best feminine fantasy armor I’ve seen made for film. Ever.
But it’s not just this amazing suit that man-children are shitting their pants over, there’s also the stills of certain characters who belong to certain fantasy races.
Their voices are, by far, outweighed by the people who are super excited to see this level of quality in the fantasy genre and the kind of story that this sort of commitment to quality warrants.
And for the sentient shitbags crying that “when this tanks, they’ll blame bitter white men” - I assure you that nobody will give you a second thought.
You already promised to tank the wildly successful films:
- Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)
- Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
- Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
- Wonder Woman (2017)
- Black Panther (2018)
- The Witcher: Season 1 (2019)
Nobody believes your cadre of bitter little goblins has the power to crash shit, scurry back to your filthy warrens.
- wincenworks
Post link
Red Sonja Valentines Special (2022)
BURNING LOVE! Red Sonja’s temporarily developed fire powers… which is handy, since she’s in a land where warlords possess deadly ice powers. Sonja finds herself amidst a lovers quarrel, in which someone exchanged their heart and soul (quite literally) for overwhelming power. Can Sonja defeat a greedy cherub ogre and restore peace to the freezing lands?
If you’ve followed this blog for a while, you’ll know that one of our favourite forms of comedy is seeing maladjusted man-childrenscreamthatConanwears less so he must be equally, if not more sexualized than Red Sonja.
Can you imagine a comic company, even one as shitty as Dynamite Entertainment, ever putting out a Conan Valentine’s special where they him on a cover like this, and inexplicably give him magic powers for a story like this!?
The next time someone claims this, please, invite them to find the comic where Conan has this kind of this happen.
Because this ain’t the first time it’s happen to Sonja, and believe it or not… last year’s was actually worse:
Red Sonja Valentines Special (2021)
Red Sonja’s Hyrkanian habitat is turned upside down as her greatest enemy becomes… her greatest admirer?!?! You thought Kulan Gath being evil was frightful, wait until you see him head-over-heels in loooove!!! Sonja will face her greatest challenge resisting the urge to kill a love that Can. Not. Die!!!!
But won’t someone please think of poor Conan!?
- wincenworks
Post link
The Outrage Is About Control, Not Breasts | Renegade Cut – Censorship is the suppression of an idea or image by an entity more powerful than its target. No entity more powerful than Square-Enix is forcing the design of Final Fantasy VII character Tifa. The outrage about her current design is a reactionary movement against an unequal status quo. Support Renegade Cut Media through Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/renegadecut
content warning: The video not only discusses the issue of gender and racial discrimination, as well as sexual assault, but also includes clips of real police brutality. Viewer discretion is advised.
A very comprehensive video explaining what we touched upon regarding the “pro-sexyness”/”anti-censorship”rhetoric multiple times before, especially here.
It’s never really about “the SJWs banning boobs” or something to that effect - it’s about upholding the status quo, so that cishet white dudes (and their presumed preferences) get catered to almost exclusively.
That’s how we get all the crybabies whining over “removed” butts,deriding the very presence of
female portsgnidtswomen in gamingordoing “un-tumblrized” edits of pretty inoffensive character designs. Ultimately it’s all reactionary trolling, done specifically to assert the dudebro dominance.Of course there must be some dudes stupid enough to actually think that sexyness, cishetness or whiteness (or “ethics in game journalism”) is being taken away from them in pop media, but ultimately it comes down to the tangible loss of control and visibility.
That’s why they feel legitimately threatened by something as simple as a woman who’s even slightly not a sex object in a video game.~Ozzie
edit: Readers notified us that the video could use some content warning for police brutality footage.
As a general follow up to all discourse about whether cartoon candy makes certain people horny enough - its worth remembering that the reason this “discourse” gets so ridiculous and so absurd is because its never actually about the topic at hand and always about enforcing the idea of their regressive view of society as normal, correct and necessary.
What a coincidence that it just happens to require we favour them unconditionally and put their personal insecurities ahead of things like… other people’s safety and right to general peaceful enjoyment of their own life.
- wincenworks
Whenever anyone goes on a tirade about how we’re wasting out time because nobody cares, etc. Remember that when a cartoon candy changed what kind of shoes she wears, it provoked a pant shitting riot that included no less than Tucker Carlson of FOX News.
What is particularly hilarious about it in this case is that this is one where literally the only ones who care are socially inept reactionaries who bought into Mars’ absurd grandiosity in their statement about this.
The response from women has generally been multi-stage bafflement at this section on the Green M&M’s bio (yes, she has a bio) that’s written like she’s an executive rather than a candy:
Being a hypewoman for my friends. I think we all win when we see more women in leading roles, so I’m happy to take on the part of supportive friend when they succeed.
Then followed by questioning why Mars thinks they’re the experts on what kind of footwear that women in… non-specific circumstances? They kept the high heels on the Brown M&M, so clearly they don’t think that gendered footwear is the problem… just these particular go-go boots on this character.
The Mars trying to reinvent their slapstick cartoon candy as role models for young women, is hilarious as it is clueless but its still enough to provoke rage and panic from reactionary bros.
Representation matters. They agree: That’s why they shit their pants at even the most comically faint hint of it.
- wincenworks
(And FYI, whenever anyone tries to put this ridiculous bullshit on women, feminists, etc, be sure to point out to them that pretty much all the write ups by women were laughing at the absurdity of Mars’ misguided attempts at inclusivity by mildly adjusting how they use gender markers)
Post link
Now, because this is almost certainly going to get the attention of certain peoplewhothink they’re clever - there is indeed, a reasonable reason to roll your eyes at this change - and it was covered by Joseph Knoop in PC Gamer.
(Yes, FYI, these images are paintings on the walls of buildings, in an MMORPG)
You’ll note though, that the people who are unimpressed by Blizzard trying to distract from their ongoing lawsuits don’t want the decision reversed, they’re just upset that:
- Blizzard is using trivial changes like this to distract from real harm they do to real women on an ongoing basis.
- Blizzard could actually have approved these and many meaningful changes at any time - but didn’t do so because they didn’t care about anything but feminist cookies.
The ones who are raging and want the changes reverted on the other hand, well they are worried about two other things.
- The sanctity of the sexuality of fictional women who just happen to be appealing to their sexuality as self-absorbed cishet men.
- Their validation as the only people in the world who matter, and that their whims are more important than anyone’s needs or interests.
(Not the lack of concern for people who’s sexuality is empowered men, or who prefer to play their fantasyadventuregames without tits and ass in their face)
My main thoughts on this were already summarized very succinctly by Jack Saint in a single, evergreen tweet:
So, my recommended guideline for distinguishing between to two types - since the shitty ones will always claim to be the well meaning ones when called out is:
Are they disappointed that Blizzard has not yet done anything meaningful to help real people who have been suffering due to their obscene behaviour, or are they concerned the imaginary people are no longer interested in helping them fap?
Because trust me, the latter were going to have this reaction regardless.
- wincenworks
Post link
from now on, i will only ever address older gentlemen as ‘young man’ to assert dominance
doodle that got carried away. talking to Her
(…but they make good click bait.)
Hi! We’d like to talk to you about “strong statements” – statements that can be shocking, debatable, or oversimplified.
And also about “strong arguments” – which tend to be logical and convincing.
People sometimes use strong statements as if they are strong arguments. But those are different things.
The title of this post is a strong statement. But it would be hard to make a strong argument that the title of this post is true.
“Strong” statements are strong in some ways. They can convey a forceful mood, or catch people’s attention. They can prompt people to be more certain and militant about opinions they already have. They can make people feel obligated to take a side. They can be a shortcut to expressing yourself when you don’t have the time, skill, or energy to use gentle and precise words.
In reality, we just think “strong” statements are less convincing than most people seem to think they are.
Sometimes it seems like because what you have to say is important, you should say it in the strongest terms possible. It can even feel like a moral obligation to speak up for your side forcefully.
Really, it depends on what you want to accomplish. When people hear something that disagrees with their beliefs too much, they tend to dismiss it out of hand.
A persuasive statement might be one that is harder for people to dismiss out of hand. Or a statement that the other person technically agrees with, but that has difficult implications for their argument.
Sometimes it’s the most understated or “weak” statements that end up being the most convincing.
If an idea is true and very important, then getting people to agree with it or think carefully about it is a good thing.
When your main goal is to be convincing, it’s useful to sometimes explain your deeply held beliefs in mild terms. It can make your argument stronger and more difficult to dismiss.
Even when it feels like it’s the other way around.
Hi there - I’m Kaydra! I’m trying to create a communal space for dialogue, support, resources, research, coping, and personal reflections regarding mental health and (dis)abilities, esp in academic contexts. I’ll often post on Idiopathic Hypersomnia, ADD, chronic depression, and my rage against the ableist institution that is academia (along with strategies for being a student and teaching students).
Hey, first dialogue subject: terms like (dis)abilities and handiccapable are offensive
you should look up the social model of disability
I don’t see her using ‘handiccapable’ but if she is disabled, she can use (dis)abled for herself. You don’t get to decide what someone calls themselves. If you are trying to teach someone, you could be a little kinder.
this feels like the tumblr callout mentality in a nutshell… an academic is trying to make a space to talk about inequality and systemic bigotry relating to their personal experiences, and gets a language police response with a “go learn something”…
fight the bigots, not each other
hey all. I gladly welcome dialogue about what linguistic tools best describe, empower, and facilitate community and individuals. I’ve yet to come across an alternative term for disablity in online or academic texts/spaces that totally satisfies me, but for now, (dis)abilities is one I have personally chosen to identify with. what’s simultaneously tricky but insightful for me is the varied language we use to describe our experiences, perspectives, and narratives, even if that language obviously isn’t perfect or right for everyone. I try my best to never describe others as anything other than what they self-describe as - my intro post’s vocabulary is intended to be reflective of myself rather than others!
anyway, I agree with @submalevolentgrace that I’d like to be in the spirit of fighting bigots and institutional bullshit, but am always down to hash out issues together. ✊
Post link
Marten van Valckenborch, Tower of Babel, c. 1600, oil on panel, 69 x 98 cm., Private collection.
Post link
Jan van Scorel, The Tower of Babel, 1550, oil on panel, 58 x 75 cm., Galleria Giorgio Franchetti alla Ca d'Oro, Venezia.
Post link
Abel Grimmer (attributed), The Tower of Babel, 1586-1620, oil on panel, 53 x 78 cm., Private collection.
Post link
Joachim Patinir (attributed), The Building of the Tower of Babel, 1500-1524, oil on panel, 74 x 103 cm., Brighton and Hove Museums and Art Galleries,
Post link
Abel Grimmer, The Tower of Babel, c. 1600, oil on panel, 65 x 50 cm., Galerie de Jonckheere, Paris.
Post link
Marten van Valckenborch, The Building of the Tower of Babel, c. 1600, oil on panel, 102 x 152 cm., Towneley Hall Art Gallery and Museum, Burnley.
Post link
