And Did You Know That Talking Like A Pirate Derives From The Dialect In A Certain Part Of England That

rewrite my immortal with a happy ending

That sounds about right.  I wrote the whole thing on a deadline and didn’t have time to make it any different

I think “performative social justice” is something that doesn’t get addressed often enough. That’s where much of the toxicity in otherwise well-meaning circles comes from.

What I mean by “performative” social justice is basically “discourse for the sake of discourse” - argument without the purpose of persuasion, in which abstract, theoretical problems are treated as seriously as if they were real-world issues. You see it in fandom all the time. I want to stress that this isn’t directed at anyone or anything in particular. It’s something I see all the time, from all sorts of people, and while I often agree with the points they make, I think it’s ultimately a pretty destructive way of thinking.

With the right rhetoric, you can make anything sound wicked. You can bypass a lot of reasoning and nuance if you sound like you’re confident that you have the moral high-ground (that’s the whole history of politics). And heck, sometimes you do! But you have to critically examine how you came to your conclusion. Nobody wants to seem like the bad guy, especially when a foolish statement can result in instant and viral public ridicule that can circulate for months or years - a pernicious form of Death of the Author. On Tumblr, the desire to conform to a particular opinion is largely motivated by fear. The punishment for deviance is often wildly disproportionate - I think we all know a few examples of things getting way out of hand. It’s seldom in response to things that cause actual, qualifiable harm.

Is there a fix for this? Maybe not on a large scale. But individually, I think it’s important to take a step back when you see drama and ask yourself, “Is this worth it? What am I trying to accomplish? Is this the most effective approach to achieving my goal?”

You’re allowed to disapprove of things casually. You can think something is tacky, in bad taste, or otherwise objectionable without needing to justify your perspective on a grand scale of good versus evil. You don’t need to use social justice as a method of signaling, to continually reestablish to your peers that you’re the Right Kind of Person only the Wrong Kind of People would disagree with. Be sure of yourself and of your beliefs. Accept nuance. A contrary opinion on a relatively trivial matter is not a personal attack, or an opportunity to flex your righteousness. Remember that the people you disagree with are often as vulnerable and well-meaning as you are.

Instead of the “anti-racist” hamster wheel, how about this?

From Campaign Zero.

Angry? Support state and local legislation, like a bill in New York to repeal a law that hides police misconduct records from the public. Or vote for politicians who appoint appellate judges who have reasonable interpretations of qualified immunity. Or rigorous police training that lasts more than a few short months.

But that’s booooooooring and requires compromise and working with people who disagree with you on some issues but not others, and, let’s face it, wheels-of-governance aesthetics < protest aesthetics.

But by all means “Say her name” until you’re blue in the face. Venmo your favorite grifter. Then go amplify some more voices to your friends, who are amplifying the same voices right back at you. Rinse and repeat.

It’s not about you. It’s not about madly scrubbing your horrible permanent stain on center stage like Lady Macbeth. Your “Work” means nothing.

Unless you’re a cop, judge, juror, or politician, your precious feelings and internalized whatevers are a distraction, not the source of the problem. The number of unarmed black men killed by people (police or civilian) who wouldn’t have done so had radical-pose “amplification” reached them is zero.

You. Are. Playing. A. Game. With. Your. Friends. Nothing more.

Anyone who says otherwise likely either has something to sell you or is under the influence of someone who does.

So take that guilt money and send it to the most boring swing-district state legislature candidate you can find who will sign on to reform legislation with a chance of passing in your state. Also, if you go on and on about how you are racist and will never be un-racist and vow to never get off the hamster wheel of shame but you don’t know who is running for judge where you live, fuck you and the liberal arts degree you rode in on.

Save lives, not your soul.

please please expand on your list of Things Which Have Actually Worked, your ask box ghost wants to hear about this

I have the best ask box ghost and I’m sorry to have gone so long without responding to this; I wanted to wait till I was in a place where I could give it the thought and attention it deserves. <3

(Original post here. I totally encourage other people to share their lists of Things Which Have Actually Worked; that seems like the sort of valuable information which is really useful to have available.)

(Cut for length, and various mental illness stuff.)

Keep reading

Why does the left - rather than the right - accuse even reasonable and nuanced moderates/classical liberals of #enlightenedcentrism and false equivalencies?

If in the middle of the Red Scare, you barged into the House Un-American Activities Committee and shouted “I THINK BOTH CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM HAVE SOME GOOD POINTS AND WE SHOULD TREAT BOTH OF THEM FAIRLY!”, Joe McCarthy would probably view you as an enemy, and any communists hidden in the audience would probably view you as a potential ally or at least as not their top problem right now. Shout the same thing in Red Square in Moscow, and you’d get the opposite results.

I think a better question is how scared we should be #enlightenedcentrism is an insult that people try to avoid. I think Sacred Principles As Exhaustible Resources remains an underappreciated point, and I think we’re already past the point where “reason”, “nuance”, “listening to both sides”, and “trying to be unbiased” are considered enemy tribal signals and automatic proof of bad faith by a big segment of the population. This was avoidable, but thanks to a bunch of bad actors poisoning the epistemic commons, we failed to avoid it.

No you’re thinking of San Antonio. Sanrio is an Afro-Cuban religion

sanrio? you mean the guy with the coat and mittens?

I’d really like structural critiques to move away from using words like “scum” in general. Individualist moralizing doesn’t belong in discussion of systemic forces; in fact, the two are directly at odds. And it’s a mindfuck of a double-bind for people who are prone to taking ideas seriously: “this issue is very large and touches many aspects of society, and you personally are directly responsible for it.” Structural problems will not be solved by obsessively purifying your own heart.