A common tendency I’ve noticed in online “SJW”/lefty discourse is the idea that “you cannot have any solidarity with me or be a genuine supporter of the cause of my group if you do not share my normative beliefs/general political perspective/operative assumptions in dealing with the world.” This…

(via amberaleefrost)

13 notes politics sjw liberalism culture philosophy ontology relativism

Carceral feminism is the tendency of self-identified feminists to become credulous to the emancipatory power of the violent apparatus of the state in their efforts to achieve feminist ends like reductions in violence against women. Of course nobody chooses the name “carceral feminist,” any more than people choose the name neoliberal. But in each case, the term aptly fits a destruction political and rhetorical practice. Mistaking a criticism of a tendency for a criticism of a philosophy is particularly damaging because almost nobody actually has a political philosophy. We instead have a collection of tendencies that we then knit together into something resembling a coherent philosophy out of self-protective and egotistical motives. What’s undeniable, in the present moment, is that many people who consider themselves leftists are betraying a breathtaking amount of trust in the police and prosecutors. They are doing so at precisely the same time that they are passionately animated against the police state in Ferguson, in New York City, and elsewhere. Many are capable of holding together these utterly incompatible positions because they don’t have a political philosophy, but rather a set of cultural and social customs that they confuse with a politics. The result is an incoherent denigration of the police state on one hand and the elevation of that same police state to the role of savior on the other.

Freddie deBoer, "Yes, carceral feminism is a thing"

Freddie deBoer carceral feminism politics culture police state law and order prison industrial complex

Kelli Stapleton Can’t Forgive Herself for Trying to Kill Her Violent, Autistic Daughter. Can You?


No. I can’t, and in fact I flat out refuse to. I will never, ever forgive this disgusting excuse for a person for trying to murder her child after putting her through abusive “therapy” to make her “less autistic”. 

Rewarding Issy for having “quiet hands”, aka suppressing her own natural expression of happiness, is blatant child abuse. Her lashing out was entirely understandable. 

Her mother trying to murder her own daughter, though? That’s not.

The author of this article can go straight to hell for sympathizing with an abled woman who tried to kill her disabled child, and so can OP.

I have not expressed any opinion about this article and whether or not I agree with the perspective of the author, largely because I am not sure what to think. I think telling me to go to hell for posting a link to a magazine article is a bit strong. At any rate, one of the reasons I linked to the article was because I wanted to know what other people thought about it, so I appreciate the response. Also, it just occurred to me that you might be under the impression that I wrote the text of the link, which I did not. The link text was associated with the article and so appeared automatically. I’m sorry if it looks like I was asking people to forgive this woman, that was certainly not my intention. Like I said, it was the link text that Tumblr used automatically, I don’t know if it came from the author of the piece or the headline writer or whoever.

(Source: fieryfalcon)

21 notes yeah that one's on me

Kelli Stapleton Can’t Forgive Herself for Trying to Kill Her Violent, Autistic Daughter. Can You?

21 notes longreads violence abuse ptsd autism mental illness murder mothers daughters

American Slavery: Aberration or Founding Principle?

There’s a notion in the study of American history, on the Left in particular, that Lincoln and the wave of Republicans who were elected in 1860 had no intention of ending slavery in the slave states.6 The Civil War, according to this view, was exclusively about preserving the Union. Supporters can point to several actions by Lincoln early in the war as evidence: a pair of executive orders in 1861, rescinding the freeing of slaves in Missouri and reversing the abolition of slavery, declared by a Union general, in three border states that had remained in the Union. In 1862, Lincoln even writes a letter stating that, if he could, he would end the war without freeing a single slave. The South was bad, sure, but the North was full of racists, too. The Civil War was a mistake and a sham.

All of this happens to fit fairly well with the second, more cynical view of American history that I described above. The Civil War was primarily about projecting power and authority and crushing rebellion, rather than the destruction of an odious institution: and why should it be otherwise, if the odious institution was designed from the beginning to be at the heart of American life?

As it happens, though, this reading also completely ignores what the abolitionist movement in America really was—the ideas behind it and the constraints it operated in.


(Source: jamesmdavisson)

1 note slavery racism politics history

The catcher is, in some strange way, a kind of embodiment of the game. He is the audience, facing the field. He is the umpire, armored in gear and hovering behind the strike zone. He is the sabermetrician, an adept of game theory, constantly calculating (unconsciously or not) risk and probability. He is the manager on the field, directing pitchers and sometimes defenses, making visits to the mound. And in his small rhythms, habits, and actions, he is the game itself — the sudden and violent movement, the still and quiet grace. There’s a phrase you sometimes hear about a catcher: the feel for the flow of the game. Here’s where the game’s mystery and mastery begin.

Louisa Thomas, "To Give and to Receive"

4 notes longreads sports baseball catchers pitchers salvador perez kansas city royals buster posey san francisco giants

The specific frustration with cinematic universes, however, is that they could—and should—be stylistically discrete, but they all have to look the same anyway. Even the most accomplished Marvel efforts of late, like Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians Of The Galaxy, have a homogenized gloss that suggests Cap and Star-Lord could cross paths in either movie without viewers feeling jarred by the clash in style. Not that the handheld camerawork in Hancock is a model anyone should feel inclined to follow, but the menu of options shrinks substantially when filmmakers have to work toward some great team-up like The Avengers at the end of the line. The only place where they can make a big difference is in the writing and storytelling, which happens to be where The Winter Soldier, The Avengers, and Guardians Of The Galaxy are most accomplished. They turn a director’s medium into a writer’s medium. They’re great television, in other words.

Scott Tobias, "The Case Against Cinematic Universes"

1 note culture criticism cinematic universe marvel auteur film director movies the avengers tv style

Dion Waiters Doesn't Lie | The Classical

longreads basketball cleveland cavaliers dion waiters sports lebron james

What we have in Gamergate is a glimpse of how these skirmishes will unfold in the future—all the rhetorical weaponry and siegecraft of an internet comment section brought to bear on our culture, not just at the fringes but at the center. What we’re seeing now is a rehearsal, where the mechanisms of a toxic and inhumane politics are being tested and improved. Tomorrow’s Lee Atwater will work through sock puppets on IRC. Tomorrow’s Sister Souljah will get shouted down with rape threats. Tomorrow’s Tipper Gore will make an inexplicably popular YouTube video. Tomorrow’s Willie Horton ad will be an image macro, tomorrow’s Borking a doxing, tomorrow’s Moral Majority a loose coalition of DoSers and robo-petitioners and scat-GIF trolls—all of them working feverishly in service of the old idea that nothing should ever really change.

Kyle Wagner, "The Future of the Culture Wars Is Here, and It’s Gamergate"

longreads gamergate politics culture wars internet

A woman using her sexuality—her difference from the presumed default state of humanity—to gain an advantage, well, shit, that’s violating rule No. 1. That people badly want this to have happened even though it didn’t is crucial to understanding why Gamergate resonates the way it does—it seems to offer evidence not only that the social-justice warriors are hypocrites and frauds, but that the true defenders of equality turn out to be, well, young, middle-class white guys, and their allies. This is how people can hold the remarkably naive idea that a movement that began with some of its members harassing women with threats of violence, rape, death, and torture can expect to be taken seriously in good-faith discussions about ethics in journalism, or anything else: They see themselves as the ones holding true to the ideals in which their opponents only profess to believe.

Kyle Wagner, "The Future of the Culture Wars Is Here, and It’s Gamergate"

gamergate culture wars race politics privilege longreads