23. Non-binary egalitarian-feminist POC.
This space serves as a pro-social justice, pro-awareness, anti-SJW / SJW stupidity receipt blog of sorts.
Let me know if I reblog a bait/troll post. DON'T FUCKING SEND ANON HATE OR DEATH THREATS ON MY BEHALF.
Last week, we reportedon the outrage that fans had regarding the inclusion of two OC’s in the latest IDW MLP comic. The OCs belonged to two artists who were known to have anti-fandom messages and artwork, and a history of aggression towards men and male fans of MLP.
Today we have an update: According to response emails from those who sent messages of concern, Ted Anderson will no longer be working with IDW comics.
This message was apparently sent to a handful of people who had sent messages to IDW.
While these have not yet been proven 100% legitimate, it appears to us at this time that they are. The notable amount of backlash from fans, angered that official media would contain any endorsement of anti-fandom messages, seems to be the root cause of Anderson’s dismissal, coupled with his numerous responses on messageboards following the incident.
We will provide any updates as they become available.
Good fucking riddance.
FEMALE ASIAN-AMERICAN WATSON, FEMALE MORIARTY, TRANS WOMAN MRS. HUDSON
WHY IS ELEMENTARY NOT TUMBLR’S FAVORITE SHOW
Because unfortunately while Tumblr tries to talk a good game about diversity and inclusiveness, fandom is in actuality sort of shit about liking things where they can’t just be writing about two white dudes touching dicks?
sam pepper is currently unemployed, being blacklisted by other youtubers, being banned from vidcon, has lost tons of followers on all social media accounts, and has a police report filed against him.
karma did not come back to bite sam pepper. karma came back, dragged sam pepper out of his house and beat the living shit out of him.
urbance fan questions being addressed, aka why you should read the kickstarter instead of just relying on tumblr posts
God fucking damn it Tumblr why do you continue shitting on wonderful things
And could we throw in the fact that if you were for a sensible equality you should be demanding not bombing anybody and not demand that just different people should have been killed?
Okay kids, gather round because you seem to be under the impression that this website owes you an education AND that your education on this subject is sufficient. Neither of those is true, but I’m gonna help you out anyway!
First, let’s discuss the “reasons for dropping the bomb” that are commonly given, but also happen to be totally wrong:
- Japan wasn’t willing to surrender
Actually, Japan was totally down to surrender! America was very good at cracking Japanese codes, and had intercepted several diplomatic messages sent to other countries where Japan expressed the terms of their conditions, with the only major term being that the emperor remain in power (Which would have been necessary to ensure a peaceful transition to foreign government for the Japanese people). Harry Truman ignored these messages and prolonged the war until the completion of the atomic bomb so that it could be used. More on that later.
In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:
Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China’s] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union …
In mid-April  the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.
- It would have saved more lives than it took
Nah. Japan was actually on it’s last legs, and wouldn’t have been able to fight much longer at all, thanks to effective embargoes, blockades, and traditional bombing. They had all but run out of fuel, ammunition, and other war supplies.
Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
- Destroying two major military targets helped us out
LOL Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren’t selected because they were military targets (Because they weren’t military targets at all!). They were selected because they were large cities where the bombs would have the most devastating affect.
President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it “saved millions of lives” by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”
This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.”
General George Marshall agreed:
Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”
As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.
Now, let’s discuss the the actual reasons for dropping the bomb:
- To send a message to the Soviet Union
- That’s it
- It was strictly politicalHistory.com notes:
By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.
New Scientist reportedin 2005:
The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 wasmeant to kick-start the Cold Warrather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.
Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago wasdone more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.
New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.
According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.
“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.
So let’s recap:
Harry Truman purposely killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to make a political statement.
The US detonated the world’s first weapon of mass destruction simply to send a message to the Soviet Union and stop Red expansion into Asia.
I’m not saying the fact that one group of people (Who happened to be Asian) was viewed as disposable just to put on a show for another group of people (Who happened to also be white) is an act of racism.
I’m also not saying that we should examine the fact that no German or Italian families living in the US were put into containment camps out of fear of spies, but pretty much all Asian-Americans were (Because Asia is a country, obviously).
I AM saying that maybe you should consider that your history lessons in school were taught from books written by old white men, and they might read a little differently if they weren’t.
Oh, and I’ll leave on this little note from President Truman’s youth. Again, I’m not saying he’s racist or anything, but…
In Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Bomb, Japanese American historian Ronald Takaki writes about the man who made the final decision to destroy two Japanese cities, President Harry Truman. This was the same man who, when he was younger, wrote the following in a letter to his future wife, Bess:
I think one man is as good as another, so long as he’s honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. My uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man of dust, a n*gger from mud, then threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion that negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia, and white men in Europe and America.
Hey look, sources where you can go and educate yourself about all of this, and fact check me while you’re at it!
deleting most of the dumb white bullshit for the historical mic drops
if anybody asks me why i hate men, i’m just gonna redirect them to this post.
it’s pretty fucking obvious that men only want to invest in breast cancer research to further degrade, objectify, and jerk off to body parts they already feel 100% entitled to. that’s what is at stake for them.
what about the women whose “tatas” weren’t saved? how must they feel being surrounded by awareness ads that focus more on keeping women’s sexy-sexy-titties-to-continue-titillating-the-males than saving real life human beings and helping survivors?
If anyone’s wondering, those posts came from here. It’s a forum for breast cancer support. Give it a read, and you’ll see how many women are outright abandoned by their husbands, sometimes after being married for decades, because their “tatas” couldn’t be saved.
This culture of “save the tatas” even goes as far as the doctor’s offices themselves. Most doctors request that the husband be present during surgical consultations, as though he has an equal say in the patient-professional discussion.
If the woman is single, as was my case, doctors have actually recommended postponing surgery until she finds a relationship, because “it could be nearly impossible to find someone who accepts it [your unnatural tatas] in years to come”.
I’m 15 months post-mastectomy, and the date I had this past week was the first time since then that a guy hadn’t reacted negatively to my scars. The relief was so overwhelming that I was fighting back tears. When I told him —essentially warning him that my body wasn’t what he must be expecting — I felt so guilty; it seemed to have the same weight and shame as telling someone I had some sort of an incurable STI or a felony record.
I shouldn’t have felt that way. I should not be ashamed of choosing to live.
Thank you for your important commentary! I hope you find someone who can love you for who you are and admire your strength as a survivor.
Activists say the laws restricting women in the kingdom are not based in religious teachings.
Saudi women activists have petitioned the country’s consultative council to back a demand to curb the “absolute authority” of male guardians over women in the kingdom, a signatory has said.
Activist Aziza Yousef told AFP news agency on Sunday that “rights activists have petitioned the Shura (consultative) Council on the occasion of the International Women’s Day [on March 8] demanding an end to the absolute authority of men over women”.
They demanded “measures to protect [women’s] rights,” in their petition to the Shura Council, she said.
Saudi Arabia imposes a strict interpretation of Islamic law, forbidding women to work or travel without the authorisation of their male guardians.
It is also the only country in the world that bans women from driving, and a woman cannot obtain an identification card without the consent of her guardian.
Laws in the kingdom enforcing such restrictions on women “are not based on religious” teachings, said Yousef.
The petition, signed by 10 female activists, also calls for allowing women to drive.
Three female members of the Shura Council presented a recommendation that women be given the right to drive in October, but the male-dominated 150-member assembly blocked the proposal.
Women in Saudi must obtain permission from a male guardian to perform “certain surgeries” and to “leave the university campus during study hours,” she added.
She cited a recent case in which a pregnant student had to give birth on campus after a women-only university in Riyadh denied access to paramedics.
And a university student died in February after paramedics were prevented from entering her campus because they were not accompanied by a male guardian, a must according to the strict segregation rules in the Muslim kingdom.
The Shura Council is appointed by the king and advises the monarch on policy, but cannot legislate.
Literally just overheard an Indian man bitching to my supervisor about “not wanting to deal with these Orientals” because he didn’t agree with how myself and my coworker enacted our business policy.
Kindly take your “racism = prejudice + power” and shove it up your Eurocentric, intersectionality-erasing asshole.
The Wolf of Wall Street's Margot Robbie is in talks to lead DreamWorks' live-action adaptation of the 1995 hit anime movie Ghost in the Shell, to be directed by Snow White and the Huntsman's Rupert Sanders.
….NO! NO! Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Seriously? Not even bothering to ATTEMPT to get an actress of Japanese descent to play the lead?
Oh, I see. It’s because the logic that “anime is racially ambiguous” or something? ‘Cause, after all, there’s no reason why a character called MOKOTO KUSANAGI be Japanese, right?
You know, this reminds me of that time they tried to make a live-action Evangelion and they were apparently going to change Asuka’s name and probably origin.
Like, really, can it be that hard to get a Japanese lead actress? Like, Rinko Kikuchi or someone, y’know, more appropriate?
Change “Evangelion” to “any anime or Asian media,” and “Asuka” to “every non-white character.” Because this is what happens literally every fucking time.
Also, yes, it really is that hard to get a lead who is Japanese when you are racist.
I feel that unless the story is solely based arround the fact that the character is japanese, race doesn’t matter. Like we were able to get a black spiderman! HOWEVER- If they turned away actresses aiming for the part SOLELY because they were japanese- then i can see that as being racist. As for the japanese names- I think they should stay true and actors/actresses should practice saying them perfectly.
Yeah, the thing is, “race shouldn’t matter” is a nice sentiment in theory but always seems to work out in practice as, “only cast white people.”
1) And while movie studios are perfectly happy to cast white actors for characters who are non-white, the reverse practically NEVER happens. This has been shown to be the case time and time again. Most of the time, studios don’t reject people of color for these parts, because those actors are never even considered. Plus, the majority of roles in Hollywood already go to white actors. Would it really be so awful to let Motoko be… I dunno, anything but white?
2) If you wanna know how “critical” her ethnicity is, you’d probably have to ask Masamune. But considering he named her Kusanagi, I would say that it’s probably sort of important. And why should being Japanese have to be “critical” to Mokoto’s character to warrant her being played by an actress who is Japanese (or even any east Asian descent)? Why should that have to be justified?
3) As for there being a black Spider-man… That is not an equivalent situation and it’s disingenuous to act as though it is. They didn’t change Peter Parker’s race. They created a whole new character who is black, (Miles Morales), and takes up the mantle of Spider-man after Parker.
So, let’s call this what it is: more racism in casting.
As someone who’s watched the ‘95 film and Stand Alone Complex, it is kinda ambiguous on whether or not it takes place in Japan. I guess you can say it pretty much does, though.
They literally mention several dozen times that they are Japanese I have no idea how you’re missing that.
Every single iteration of Ghost in the Shell has at the very least taken place in Asia and that was an incredibly important part of the setting (Hong Kong was chosen for the movie due to its architecture and cityscapes, Japan was chosen for the anime to put a specific origin point of Section 9 and also to give a full background story to the refugee plot in 2nd Gig, etc.)
Why is it that in order for a person of color to be casted for a character that is a person of color, we need a reason? “Oh, her race has to be important to the story!” “Oh, she looks ambiguous, why does it matter?” And yet we never hear these reasons thrown at white actors. It reinforces the idea that characters are white until proven minority which is, yes indeed, racist, whether they “meant it” or not.
The Major is Japanese. That’s it, end of story. There is no excuse for this. And you can bet your ass that this won’t be the only case of white washing in this movie.
being a cishet looks boring why do people do that
Idk maybe bc sexuality/gender isnt based on how cool or interesting an individual wants to look
yeah but why be boring when u can be awesome and not cishet
yeah but why treat lgbt+ identities like some trendy fashion accessory that ppl can just slap on to look cool when u could not act like a complete idiot