Sunday, June 30, 2019
Pozzwood Meltdown
Got to the party late yesterday and missed the real action. Patriot Prayer, the right-wing provocateur outfit who prompted yesterday's day of rage, was gone before I got there. As is typical, after the Patriots had a brief demonstration under heavy police protection they dispersed.
Progressive protesters then turn their attention to harassing police, journalists and anyone who looks like they don't belong. Various flakes and outright crazies are drawn to the protests. Every now and then you'll find them squaring off against each other:
Here they are massing at the riverfront and then heading back into downtown to harass the cops and confound commuters. Note the tail-gate twerkers in their U-Haul offering "free vegan milkshakes"--I assume the concrete and lime antifa were adding to their "milkshake" bombs is vegan:
Friday, June 28, 2019
Friday's Fable
Revival
this is a series: previously
Whitist Apologia
by Janae Acharya-Ramirez She-Her Cohen*
New York Times, July 6, 2042
Every high school freshman knows the history of the minstrel show in and its role in maintaining white supremacy. Thus the inherent problemicity in its recent resurrection, in parody of the original, as the "white show", replacing black stereotypes of the slave and Jim Crow eras with white stereotypes from our recent past in white supremacist America.
These shows have become so popular they're the main feature of virtually every "tent show" in the North American Consumer Region. The revival of that broader form, from which the new white minstrelsy was born, presents its own inherent problemicity matrix, coming as it does from the era of white supremacy.
Any representation of that dark period's norms, attitudes and mores runs the risk of normalizing them.
This was demonstrated on these pages brilliantly last week by Harvard Professor Tanyika Balder-Dash Bhe-Bher** in bher essay "The Only Good Whitism...". The shows are history, and any history of oppression without context amounts to the re-introduction of narrative pathogens. Her recommendations for placing Office of Civility and Acceptance regulators with every show is a good start.
Interestingly enough, the revival of the tent show derives in large part from the same necessity that created the original: summertime heat made indoor entertainment unbearable in the hottest months of summer before the development of air conditioning.
Now it's the power grid crisis and electricity rationing driving people out of sweltering micro-apartments and public spaces--and into a cultural and legal limbo.
Licensed under arcane laws regulating "tent shows, circuses and carnivals" as old as the original shows, the productions operate entirely outside of Department of Inclusion regulatory purview. It might come as a shock to the average person, but the tent shows can virtually say or present whatever they want, without fear of penalty.
You might ask--and virtually all of us have attended or seen one of the shows--what problem one could have with shows portraying supremacist era whites in mocking caricature.
I contacted Michael Gruden-Silver He-Him, producer of "seven or eight" shows to ask if the shows are guilty of normalization.
"I see our role as instructional and fun at the same time. I categorically reject the shows normalize whiteness or whitism. I fail to see how ridicule is somehow normalization. We've never sought to present whites or whitism in a positive light."
He's also quick to point out a fundamental difference between the new shows, in which white performers portray whites, and the old shows, in which white performers in blackface portrayed blacks.
"We realized it would be degrading for a non-white to wear whiteface in any context." He also rejected the charge that whiteface in this context is a "violent enhancement of ghostly whiteness" in the words of the Reverend Foremost Chastity Coates Bhe-Bher.
"Our performers wear whiteface only to complete the parody." He says.
Despite their portrayal as dishonest, boorish or ignorant, the stock repertoire of comic foils--such as the "yuppie", the "bro", the "redneck"--become cultural figures of familiarity; and familiarity breeds not contempt but a measure of fondness. We can't help it. The characters make us laugh. We chuckle and shake our head as if at the antics of an eccentric relative, and before we know it we've humanized whitism.
A recent study out of Yale examined the content of the four most popular shows over the last two years and found the same pattern affecting all, one of gradual softening of the shows' portrayal of whites. All began with material duly and unambiguously contemptuous in its portrayal of historical whites; all ended the period with material, while still presenting them as the comic foil, portrayed them in a somewhat more sympathetic light.
It gets worse than that. Shows looking to get an edge on their competitors have taken to introducing innocuous caricatures, such as "the cowboy", or "the sailor". Worse still, the shows offering these characters seem to be finding success. Overtly positive characters can't be far away. Rumor has it one show is working on a character called "the astronaut".
Certainly the content of the shows will eventually be brought under control; even the producers seem resigned to that. But is control of content enough? Is content really the problem? Some forms are inherently exclusionary.
The white minstrelsy, like the black minstrelsy, is at its core caricature.In engaging in caricature we validate the practice of caricature. Even the appropriately negative portrayals of whites have this unfortunate effect: without contextual guidance, people will assume there's some validity to other caricatures, such as those of blacks in the old minstrelsy. The dynamic is at work in the new minstrelsy as in the old: the audience believes it is laughing at something familiar.
It isn't merely a question of content. Content is the least of it. The forms of the pre-liberation past, being products of it, are the problem, as evidenced by the white show's progress. Hewing to all norms of justice inclusion, they nonetheless have the effect of bowdlerizing the past, of minimizing non-white suffering and even inducing nostalgia. Reversing the content of minstrelsy makes it no less minstrelsy. Existing entirely as a reference to that original transgression, it revives it.
Our experience with the new minstrelsy has revived Professor Balder-Dash's call for "an end to satire as we know it". I haven't given up the hope satire, and comedy generally, can be saved, despite their inherent power dynamic. But we don't need to curtail it until we figure out what's going on. The white show has demonstrated that.
The good news is the shows are no longer escaping notice. Pastor Coates assures me bhe's planning a national action soon to protest their continuing operation outside of regulatory scrutiny.
to be continued
*Regarding the proper placement of the colloquially named "pronounerific", denoting gender identity, introduced in the early twenties and standard by the time of our story, appearing here as "She-Her": it follows the surname, unless the surname is preceded by a hyphenated pair of surnames, in which case the--properly named--proidentitatem follows the hyphenation and precedes the surname [Ed. from the future]
**"Bhe-Bher": specifically a black "She-Her" [Ed. from the future]
this is a series: previously
Whitist Apologia
by Janae Acharya-Ramirez She-Her Cohen*
New York Times, July 6, 2042
Every high school freshman knows the history of the minstrel show in and its role in maintaining white supremacy. Thus the inherent problemicity in its recent resurrection, in parody of the original, as the "white show", replacing black stereotypes of the slave and Jim Crow eras with white stereotypes from our recent past in white supremacist America.
These shows have become so popular they're the main feature of virtually every "tent show" in the North American Consumer Region. The revival of that broader form, from which the new white minstrelsy was born, presents its own inherent problemicity matrix, coming as it does from the era of white supremacy.
Any representation of that dark period's norms, attitudes and mores runs the risk of normalizing them.
This was demonstrated on these pages brilliantly last week by Harvard Professor Tanyika Balder-Dash Bhe-Bher** in bher essay "The Only Good Whitism...". The shows are history, and any history of oppression without context amounts to the re-introduction of narrative pathogens. Her recommendations for placing Office of Civility and Acceptance regulators with every show is a good start.
Interestingly enough, the revival of the tent show derives in large part from the same necessity that created the original: summertime heat made indoor entertainment unbearable in the hottest months of summer before the development of air conditioning.
Now it's the power grid crisis and electricity rationing driving people out of sweltering micro-apartments and public spaces--and into a cultural and legal limbo.
Licensed under arcane laws regulating "tent shows, circuses and carnivals" as old as the original shows, the productions operate entirely outside of Department of Inclusion regulatory purview. It might come as a shock to the average person, but the tent shows can virtually say or present whatever they want, without fear of penalty.
You might ask--and virtually all of us have attended or seen one of the shows--what problem one could have with shows portraying supremacist era whites in mocking caricature.
I contacted Michael Gruden-Silver He-Him, producer of "seven or eight" shows to ask if the shows are guilty of normalization.
"I see our role as instructional and fun at the same time. I categorically reject the shows normalize whiteness or whitism. I fail to see how ridicule is somehow normalization. We've never sought to present whites or whitism in a positive light."
He's also quick to point out a fundamental difference between the new shows, in which white performers portray whites, and the old shows, in which white performers in blackface portrayed blacks.
"We realized it would be degrading for a non-white to wear whiteface in any context." He also rejected the charge that whiteface in this context is a "violent enhancement of ghostly whiteness" in the words of the Reverend Foremost Chastity Coates Bhe-Bher.
"Our performers wear whiteface only to complete the parody." He says.
Despite their portrayal as dishonest, boorish or ignorant, the stock repertoire of comic foils--such as the "yuppie", the "bro", the "redneck"--become cultural figures of familiarity; and familiarity breeds not contempt but a measure of fondness. We can't help it. The characters make us laugh. We chuckle and shake our head as if at the antics of an eccentric relative, and before we know it we've humanized whitism.
A recent study out of Yale examined the content of the four most popular shows over the last two years and found the same pattern affecting all, one of gradual softening of the shows' portrayal of whites. All began with material duly and unambiguously contemptuous in its portrayal of historical whites; all ended the period with material, while still presenting them as the comic foil, portrayed them in a somewhat more sympathetic light.
It gets worse than that. Shows looking to get an edge on their competitors have taken to introducing innocuous caricatures, such as "the cowboy", or "the sailor". Worse still, the shows offering these characters seem to be finding success. Overtly positive characters can't be far away. Rumor has it one show is working on a character called "the astronaut".
Certainly the content of the shows will eventually be brought under control; even the producers seem resigned to that. But is control of content enough? Is content really the problem? Some forms are inherently exclusionary.
The white minstrelsy, like the black minstrelsy, is at its core caricature.In engaging in caricature we validate the practice of caricature. Even the appropriately negative portrayals of whites have this unfortunate effect: without contextual guidance, people will assume there's some validity to other caricatures, such as those of blacks in the old minstrelsy. The dynamic is at work in the new minstrelsy as in the old: the audience believes it is laughing at something familiar.
It isn't merely a question of content. Content is the least of it. The forms of the pre-liberation past, being products of it, are the problem, as evidenced by the white show's progress. Hewing to all norms of justice inclusion, they nonetheless have the effect of bowdlerizing the past, of minimizing non-white suffering and even inducing nostalgia. Reversing the content of minstrelsy makes it no less minstrelsy. Existing entirely as a reference to that original transgression, it revives it.
Our experience with the new minstrelsy has revived Professor Balder-Dash's call for "an end to satire as we know it". I haven't given up the hope satire, and comedy generally, can be saved, despite their inherent power dynamic. But we don't need to curtail it until we figure out what's going on. The white show has demonstrated that.
The good news is the shows are no longer escaping notice. Pastor Coates assures me bhe's planning a national action soon to protest their continuing operation outside of regulatory scrutiny.
to be continued
*Regarding the proper placement of the colloquially named "pronounerific", denoting gender identity, introduced in the early twenties and standard by the time of our story, appearing here as "She-Her": it follows the surname, unless the surname is preceded by a hyphenated pair of surnames, in which case the--properly named--proidentitatem follows the hyphenation and precedes the surname [Ed. from the future]
**"Bhe-Bher": specifically a black "She-Her" [Ed. from the future]
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Monday, June 24, 2019
Oregay
From fellow Portlander Tony
This story is one hundred percent true.
Some bullshit ass bar on the Oregon Coast. Seaside, if it really matters. June 13th at 12:06am if ya wanna get technical about it.
He looked like an average rural white kid. Fit. Handsome. Well mannered at first.
He was wearing the standard garb you’d expect from a kid that lives in Corpus Christie, Texas. Trucker hat. Flannel shirt.
After a few drinks, he says he’s a firefighter. We talk. He says he has a great life. He’s not yet 30. He seems like the polar opposite of the urban beta male pack that the cities are so full of these days.
I tell him, “Hey, bro, this next shot’s for you. You’re the future of America.”
I really fucking hope I was wrong about that.
After the shot, he makes an Italian joke, assuming that I am Italian. Everyone named Tony MUST be Italian, you know? I jokingly tell him I’d rather be a Somalian than an Italian. At this, he tells me that “people are just people, and the world is changing. We should “WELCOME AFRICAN MIGRANTS WITH OPEN ARMS.” Whoa. Where is this coming from?
I thought he was a blue collar, working class, TEXAS kinda guy.
After that little statement, I tell him 3/5s of a nigger joke, just to see if he’s serious or not
Like an ugly woman who knows you had lunch with her for the very last time, he gets kinda serious.
He gets to punching me. In the ribs. The chest. What he thinks are the weak spots. Sort of how an old buddy would punch you. Expect he wasn’t an old buddy
He tells me he’s half Irish, half Mexican. Lucky me. How he loves to fight. How crazy he gets when he drinks. How he’s pretty much a bad ass. Laying it on thick.
He keeps punching me at the bar, where we’re both seated. I’m waxing stoic, and he keeps trying to punch me harder. Kind of joking, but kind of not. Testing me.
I say, “Hey. You ever been inside a boxing gym?”
He says “No.”
This dude is almost 15 years younger than my old out of shape ass.
I tell him, “Let’s arm wrestle.”
Right about then, I swear on my honor, he started calling me a bully.
Started saying it loud.
Asking for help.
Looking like a mommas boy who’s trying to hide behind his mother’s apron strings.
He showed me his true colors.
This person (I won’t call him a man) started calling out for help. Proclaiming me a bully. Loudly. Playing the victim. Sounding like a bitch ass south east Portland faggot.
Except he was a firefighter from Corpus Christie, Texas, named Alejandro. (goes by AJ.)
The barkeep came over.
He told her I was a threat.
I was told to leave.
I was wrong about the future of America.
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Justice is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
One man's radicalization is another man's rehabilitation.
The New York Times' recent piece on rehabilitated white nationalist Caleb Cain breathlessly describes his foray into right wing YouTube as if he was a spellbound zombie conveyed along by mysterious algorithms
The ACLU and its media allies are trying to take YouTube over entirely from its creators, from its audience, from YouTube. They've lost the platform, and, probably related, the platform has become the last haven of genuine political discourse. It's as if, in banning nationalist dissent everywhere else, they herded it onto YouTube; chasing it off of YouTube leaves it with no effective platform, shunted into little narrative reservations where no civilized person might be troubled by its savagery.
Not only does the left's argument not inspire, its customary advantages don't work on a free YouTube. It is (or was) democratic, it empowers the common man, costing virtually nothing to get started; it's global and grassroots at the same time. An unfettered YouTube is everything the left claims to want, and they want nothing to do with it.
The New York Times' recent piece on rehabilitated white nationalist Caleb Cain breathlessly describes his foray into right wing YouTube as if he was a spellbound zombie conveyed along by mysterious algorithms
These interviews and data points form a picture of a disillusioned young man, an internet-savvy group of right-wing reactionaries and a powerful algorithm that learns to connect the two. It suggests that YouTube may have played a role in steering Mr. Cain, and other young men like him, toward the far-right fringesBut there is cause for hope, according to the Times
It also suggests that, in time, YouTube is capable of steering them in very different directions.The article goes on to describe Cain's deprogramming by an internet-savvy group of left-wing ideologues manipulating powerful algorithms. Justice doesn't allow for self-awareness.
Mr. Cain also found videos by Natalie Wynn, a former academic philosopher who goes by the name ContraPoints. Ms. Wynn wore elaborate costumes and did drag-style performances in which she explained why Western culture wasn’t under attack from immigrants, or why race was a social construct...
Ms. Wynn and Mr. Bonnell are part of a new group of YouTubers who are trying to build a counterweight to YouTube’s far-right flank. This group calls itself BreadTube, a reference to the left-wing anarchist Peter Kropotkin’s 1892 book, “The Conquest of Bread.” It also includes people like Oliver Thorn, a British philosopher who hosts the channel PhilosophyTube, where he posts videos about topics like transphobia, racism and Marxist economics.
The core of BreadTube’s strategy is a kind of algorithmic hijacking. By talking about many of the same topics that far-right creators do — and, in some cases, by responding directly to their videos — left-wing YouTubers are able to get their videos recommended to the same audience.Good luck with that, as they say.
The ACLU and its media allies are trying to take YouTube over entirely from its creators, from its audience, from YouTube. They've lost the platform, and, probably related, the platform has become the last haven of genuine political discourse. It's as if, in banning nationalist dissent everywhere else, they herded it onto YouTube; chasing it off of YouTube leaves it with no effective platform, shunted into little narrative reservations where no civilized person might be troubled by its savagery.
Not only does the left's argument not inspire, its customary advantages don't work on a free YouTube. It is (or was) democratic, it empowers the common man, costing virtually nothing to get started; it's global and grassroots at the same time. An unfettered YouTube is everything the left claims to want, and they want nothing to do with it.
Friday, June 14, 2019
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Censorship to Continue Until Morale Improves
Censorship is the eighth dirty word. The first seven are okay now, actually. Censorship is the last dirty word. Can't say it.
YouTube channel Black Pigeon Speaks was taken down without explanation this morning
The reason we know; the only curious thing is the timing. The subject of his last video was censorship and I think I'm seeing a trend.
BPS was meticulous in avoiding terms of service violations, but was certainly slated for removal at the first opportunity--but what determines that in YouTube's estimation? What holds them back in the first place from wholesale banning? Having demonstrated they won't explain themselves and no one will force them to, what restrains them?
Going nuclear in a day on the right might prompt a response, finally, from somewhere in the government or society. Congress taking up the anti-trust issue must factor in. But be certain, if things get really bad for the Narrative, they'll probably drop the big one. Everything they've done this far shows their commitment to censorship of any rightist or populist dissent, even over profit.
How much autonomy is YouTube allowed? The erratic nature of its censorship--waiting a day to purge Crowder and then abjectly apologizing, for instance--indicate Google is applying all the pressure (not community outrage), and intervening at points when CEO Susan Wojkiki isn't being diligent enough. Thus the tearful apology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sanity Fair
"Antifascist" demonstration Portland, Oregon. August 17, 2019. The two sides squared off across a field, defined by police cord...
