Don Balke (American, b. 1933). Muskrat and American Holly, 1980. Gouache and watercolor on board.
MutualArt
Today's Document
Claire Keane

@theartofmadeline
trying on a metaphor
Show & Tell
untitled

Discoholic 🪩
occasionally subtle
Mike Driver

#extradirty
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Noah Kahan
Sade Olutola
ojovivo

roma★

PR's Tumblrdome
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
KIROKAZE
$LAYYYTER
NASA

seen from Türkiye
seen from Brazil
seen from Venezuela
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
@sulgkoolon
Don Balke (American, b. 1933). Muskrat and American Holly, 1980. Gouache and watercolor on board.
MutualArt
having a process for people who have done morally horrific things to make amends, rejoin community, and do right going forward is actually fundamentally crucial for the left. having a clear and accessible pathway for people to be socially (if not interpersonally) forgiven is how you get people radicalized against capitalism and imperialism and white supremacy and patriarchy. its how you turn "these people think i am a bad person" into "these people think something and someone coerced or forced me into doing bad things, and these people want to help me do something about that."
if you want more revolutionaries, you must have a system to turn guilty, traumatized, angry bystanders and collaborators into revolutionaries. and I say a system and process because its not "oh the drone operator said they were sorry and felt bad so its all good now :)" there is no shortcut here. but it is absolutely necessary. no revolution is comprised of morally pure people. in many cases, the most devoted revolutionaries are the ones who know exactly what it is like on the other side.
#'coerced or forced' is a little too unnuanced for me you are accountable for your actions#but yes everyone needs to have an opportunity to get better#even if that person wasn't coerced or forced in any way actually. yes even then.
to explain what i mean by "coerced":
i think doing things that are morally bad is also bad for the individual. people shouldn't be forced to do things in general, but its especially bad to force someone to do something morally bad. its also bad to coerce them into doing that. and its quite horrific for a system to embed within someone a worldview which habitually leads them to do bad things, and a social system which incentivizes people to do bad things.
this post is in part inspired by reading the book Dirty Work which talks about moral injury & people (largely marginalized people) who do work that is seen as morally "dirty" in society. and specifically the chapter on people who work with drones for the US military (in a variety of ways). one of the major figures was a woman who grew up in poverty and was terrified of dying that way, went to join the military to get to see the world, and ended up working a job requiring her to watch hours and hours of drone footage, including hours of people living their lives, their gruesome deaths, and their families trying to collect their body parts in the aftermath. she recounts how much this weighed on her psychologically and morally, but not only her fear of poverty but also being court-martialed or otherwise subject to punishment if she spoke out or did anything, and her anger at protestors who seemed to be largely middle-class women who directed their protests at individual workers like her. she eventually did become a whistle-blower and says she experienced backlash from the left as well as the right because of her job.
now, this was a difficult read for me. it can be frustrating to read a whole chapter on the suffering of drone operators when so many people in the US don't give the beginning of a fuck about the people who have been getting bombed for years. the trauma of entire countries doesn't outweigh the trauma of a single US soldier. how can we talk about her anger at women protesting drone warfare because it hurts her feelings when we are still having to protest drone warfare that destroys entire families?
and yet. i think that reaction is partially an attempt to avoid the discomfort of how fucked the situation is holistically. the woman clearly had internalized plenty of dehumanizing, imperialistic, racist, and likely Orientalist beliefs and values. but this was hardly something she consciously chose. its easy to say "never join the US military" when you are someone who 1. already had the time and chance to develop a sense of how evil the US military is (not everyone necessarily does) 2. was not and is not in the position of being 17 and worried you'll die of a fentanyl overdose in the next five years like multiple of your classmates and desperate for any opportunity out.
does it make her decision better morally? i don't think so. but why was it a decision she had to make? why did she have so few options? why did things feel so desperate? why did a certain decision seem better and more accessible than others? if we are going up the line of responsibility here, the reason this harmful, morally bad action took place at all is because of the system of US imperialism and capitalism.
the problem is, that answer does not give us A Person To Punish. which we, as people socialized into a worldview of punitive justice, have been taught to want. transformative justice isn't just switching to A Person To Fix, its directing our energy towards social change and collective thinking and acting. that doesn't ignore the individual, but it always sees the individual through a social lens. the ultimate goal is a system which incentivizes the morals we want to see just as much as the current one incentives individualism and authoritarianism and puritanism and imperialism.
i think the perspective that we are coerced, by social systems like imperialism, patriarchy, capitalism, white supremacy, etc. into acting immorally and harming others and ourselves, more naturally invites people to see their own racism, sexism, orientalism, classism, etc. as both morally bad and yet not a sign they are bad. it directly counters the idea that saying "the thing you did is racist" means "YOU are racist and EVIL and CONSCIOUSLY DESPISE PEOPLE OF COLOR"*; the point is that the thing you did is racist, and if you don't want to do racist things, then you have to unlearn the shit you were socialized into believing. "coerced" keeps in mind that there are people who benefit from keeping this status quo. if racism is evil, and white supremacist culture means everyone has internalized racist beliefs, that doesn't mean everyone is evil. it means we have all been coerced into participating in evil, and we are demanding an end to that coercion; that is (one form of) accountability.
this perspective can't exist alone, either. it must be paired with a devotion to the victims of these systems. this is why it is a process. the back-and-forth has to be put into action to get a balanced solution. what is best is what practically creates system change, and having process for (again, social) forgiveness is a practical necessity.
*to be clear, this is what people often feel when they are told they did smth racist; that is itself a racist reaction, but one that people do have & i try to think about how practically to get people to get over that reaction & focus on the actual issue at hand
i 100% agree with all of this. to be clear, my tags weren't meant to deny anything about how society is coercive and systematically pushes people into doing bad things. only that i still think the choice to get better needs to be accessible even to people who could have chosen better, for one reason or another. (whether someone is allowed to be accepted should not be predicated on whether they were 'enough of a victim,' whatever that means.) and we shouldn't conclude that no one is responsible for their actions--they are. but society as a whole is responsible for the coercion and violence done against them, and the solution to that responsibility is not punishment, but restoration.
living under a rock is so fun i love watching a movie that’s been famous for decades and being like wow this is so good.. did you guys know about this
tweet sequence of a not-quite-friend and artist i admire that i find myself thinking of constantly
i think more robots should be disabled actually. robots whose bodies keep falling apart and need much more consistent repairs. robots whose bodily upkeep is hard and laborious and exhausting. robots who physically cant do things without help from another individual. robots who are imperfect and dont fit the bill of a flawless machine. i want more of this waiter please bring me more disabled robots
Ok, so, a realistically depicted robot, in my opinion, would HAVE to be disabled. Anyone with any robotic/mechanical parts could tell you that.
So, backing up, many people say that they suddenly "feel their age" around 30 because their body, if they keep using it like they're 20, will stop healing faster than they can hurt it. Many chronically ill folks deal with this slowed recovery starting at a much earlier age, and more dramatically. When we die of 'old age' that's in large part due to your healing factor being slowed down so much, the act of being alive wears you down faster than your body can heal.
Robots can not heal.
Sure, they can have parts replaced, but all mechanical parts are installed with an expected number of uses and hours of operation, not even accounting for any traumatic damage.
These legs are rated for three years of use, or 20,000 miles of walking. I'm one year and 3,000 miles over, and can no longer hit my top speed, and tend to veer left if I'm not careful.
These eyes were supposed to be good for 5 years, but the bright lights of the desert and the frequent sand storm mean that after two years in, some of the sensors are burnt out, and the lenses are scratched and difficult to replace, and the same thing is just going to happen to the next pair, so is it really worth it?
My oil tank is cracked, and until I get a new one, I need to drink a new bottle every morning instead of every two months, and I can't bend over forward without spilling some.
This heart has 3 million beats in it. At 60 bpm, that will last me over 11 years. At 120 bpm, it won't last six, until I need a new one.
My CPU was made to last for 5 years with average use. At 3 years, I can think at 65% of the speed I started with. How slow do I have to be before it's worth it to replace that? Every robot is built dying in a way that a healthy able bodied person cannot fully understand. The idea that every part of your body is ticking down, that taking a rest day only delays the inevitable, that once something is broken, it stays that way until you can get it fixed.
Sure, some cars are brand new, owned by someone with a garage and nearly infinite money to pour into upkeep. Some of them are old beaters that are just trying their best to get their 20-something owners to class and back, desperately hoping that it can hold its timing belt together until they can afford to replace it, but please drive slow until then?
Do you think that old beater car might also be worried about the day it becomes cheaper to replace than maintain? That "being bale to afford it" might refer to a new car, not a new belt?
Who among us know the fear that me might be easier to replace than to maintain?
Yes, this makes perfect sense. And robots would also share a fear that I think many disabled humans live with - what happens when the company that makes the technology keeping you functional goes out of business? Or decides to stop making the parts you need because it's not profitable enough?
so women are supposed to grin and bear the books, the comics, the movies, the plays, the tv shows, the stories, the sci-fi, the translated ancient poems, the fucking millennia of men writing about their self inserts torturing women and it being declared as High Art by other men, we’re supposed to read it in our free time, study it in classrooms, include their styles in our own writing, accept their cultural influence as natural, watch it in the cinema, write about it, talk about it, accept it, aspire it, but men can’t tolerate three seconds of female wish fulfilment of a woman snapping the wrist of a creep without feeling personally kicked in the balls.
This reminds me of something I observed in college while I was doing my honors thesis on women in modern horror films. I watched a LOT of horror during that time as part of my research, and sometimes that was done with my family around.
And my dad and brothers? Were deeply disturbed by the movie Jennifer’s Body. I was flabbergasted. It’s not scary! It’s not even that gory. But they were horrified by it. These men who grew up on 70s slashers were legitimately shook by 90 minutes of Megan Fox eating a few teenage boys, mostly off-screen.
Similarly, my all-male reading panel for my thesis? Were so disturbed by my synopsis of the film Teeth that they couldn’t even talk about it. One of them said he couldn’t look at his wife for a week after reading it.
Again, grown-ass men who study and teach media for a living. Who definitely watch and enjoy horror movies. One of whom was a huge Tarantino buff. We watched and read worse in his intro to mass media class! But one movie about a girl whose vag could bite was enough to haunt him.
Then of course you have things like the Gone Girl backlash–men yelling that Amy Dunne is evil and women clamoring to assure everyone that they know she is not someone to emulate–the backlash against Carol Danvers, and, more recently, the griping from MRAs against the upcoming film Hustlers, which is about strippers scamming their Wall Street clients.
My conclusion? Most men–at least most straight, cisgender men, who are both my sample population and most of the ones whining that Carol is a “villain”–are perfectly fine with, and desensitized to, media where men do violence to women (horror movies), or men do violence to men (horror and action movies). They’re even sort of fine when women do violence to women (“ooooo cat fight!”).
But they get intensely uncomfortable when women are depicted doing any kind of violence to men, especially in films that tilt the balance of power to the other side of the m/f gender binary beyond a single moment or scene.
So woman as flesh-eating monster with men as her preferred cuisine? Woman who responds to unwanted sexual contact by biting it off? Woman who frames her cheating husband for murder? Woman whose response to harassment–behavior that many of the loudest whiners know is both creepy and reflective of their own thoughts/actions–is to break something?
Too scary. Unacceptable. Disturbing. These men hate being presented with the idea, even in fiction, that their position of power is socially constructed, that it could easily be flipped the other way. It terrifies them.
In feeling that terror, they experience a tiny modicum of what living, existing, moving, being perceived as a woman in the world is like.
And they flinch every time.
Here have a newspaper comic from 1993
(guy who's not getting anything done voice) I need to learn every skill and all information
you have permission to pick that 2 year old "abandoned" project back up. it's not mad at you for setting it aside. and maybe time and distance have helped ease or erase the things that made you put it down in the first place.
An illustration of a thylacine published in the 1887 issue of the French scientific journal Le Naturaliste, as part of an article announcing the arrival of two live thylacines to the menagerie of the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle in Paris. Both thylacines would die in 1891 due to cold exposure.
Harper Josh telling Fitz he sings like a boy who doesn’t know he has a voice of a man. I want to crumble onto the floor and hug him tightly to my chest oh little Fitz
Cats on a vintage postcard
Everyone look at the quilt my grandma made me!! I’ve actually had it for a few years now but I wanted to post it so y’all could admire it!
Amazing moments in Dads: my friend’s dad’s critique of Frankenstein was, “I just don’t think the author had read science fiction before.”
How careless of her
HOT AUTISTIC ADULTS IN YOUR AREA ARE UNSURE IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO THEM...CLICK HERE TO ESTABLISH CLEAR INTENT
it is wild to me that you're letting your 4 year old have pizza that late at night. my instinct is to be like what is wrong with you but you've been absolutely rocking my world view on food rules for the past couple of years honestly
If you are hungry you should eat, always. We're having pizza cause we're on vacation and that's what's available honestly a lot of the time when she gets the night time hungers she wants scrambled eggs lol.
We let her eat and then she goes to bed and everyone is happy!
One of the most eye-opening aspects of parenthood for me has been how socially ingrained it is for parents to be coercive and controlling about food access in the name of manners. Like, scientifically, we know that kids have much smaller stomachs than adults, and also much faster metabolisms. That makes sense! They're growing! And we also know, scientifically, that kids have different palates than adults - that bitter flavours are much more unpleasant for most toddlers, for instance, and that certain kids have strong sensory aversions to certain textures or tastes. This latter point is also true of adults, too - and it's completely fair! But you would never demand that an adult clear their plate once they said they were full, or shame them for their inability to finish because they had a sandwich earlier. You wouldn't force them to eat every part of an unfamiliar meal they ordered at a restaurant that they turned out not to like, or tell them that they didn't get to have a mid-morning snack as punishment for not having eaten breakfast. And yet it's considered completely normal to do this to children - especially very small children - whose bodies constantly want fuel. Which isn't to say it's pointless to teach kids manners around food and mealtimes - it's not! How to sit at a table, how to use a knife and fork, how to behave at a restaurant, how to politely ask for seconds or express that you're full (I've had an elegant sufficiency, was my grandmother's delightful go-to phrase), how to join in the conversation once you're done with your food, how to make a good faith attempt at trying unfamiliar dishes, how to broaden your palate as you get older, how to behave as a guest at someone else's table - all of this is important to learn! But instead of this, what a lot of parents actually do - and most often because they themselves were raised with it - is treat food access as a test of obedience. A child who asks for a snack is whiny, because you just had breakfast!, even though it's developmentally better for a child to eat multiple small meals throughout the day than three big ones. A child who refuses a given food is picky, because you should just eat what you're given!, even though most adults would never extend this same attitude to themselves. A child who eats three square meals a day and still wants more is greedy, because you've already had enough!, even though we'd consider it wholly normal for an adult - and especially a physically active adult - to want extra. And at the same time, once kids are old enough to feed themselves, they're often discouraged from doing so, their hunger treated as a shameful inconvenience. Sure, if a particular food is expensive, difficult to acquire, needed for a particular dish that someone is planning to cook or belongs to a specific household member, then it makes sense to say, "hey, you can only have X if you ask, for Y reason," because that's about teaching responsibility and courtesy, not punishing hunger. It's also fair to say that certain foods, like ice cream, are only for dessert, or require permission, because kids need help learning restraint. And once they can write, you should teach them that, if they take the last of something, they should put it on the shopping list so you know to get more. But a lot of people still just... act annoyed that their kids are hungry, and particularly when that hunger - as is developmentally normal! - falls outside of allotted mealtimes. Because they grew up being punished for being hungry, and so it's built into their bones that food-seeking behaviour is somehow inherently rude, when eating when you're hungry is actually one of the healthiest things we can do.