xenomorphique:

Happy All Countries Matter Day 🥰🥰🥰

(via icantalk710)

Notes on Sedgwick’s “Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading”

heideggaaargh:

“Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading” was originally written in 1995 (I think?), then revised and republished in 2003 as part of Sedgwick’s final essay collection. Sedgwick writes that paranoid reading (the “intellectual offspring” of Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, those suspicious readers par excellence) has become the dominant mode of critical inquiry practiced in literary and cultural studies today—so dominant, in fact, that most people think of paranoid reading practices and “theory” as synonymous. To practice theory is to practice the hermeneutics of suspicion: as she puts it, “Paranoia has by now candidly become less a diagnosis than a prescription”) (125). This is a really rich essay, and my summary will only touch on a few aspects of it. Skipping around a bit, I want to start with her list of the characteristics of paranoid reading:

1. Paranoia is anticipatory.
2. Paranoia is reflexive and mimetic.
3. Paranoia is a strong theory.
4. Paranoia is a theory of negative affects.
5. Paranoia places its faith in exposure.

Given the longstanding historical associations between homosexuality, homophobia, and paranoia (as both a medical condition and an interpretive mode), Sedgwick sees queer studies as a particularly good site for exploring how paranoid reading operates and why it has become so firmly entrenched in our contemporary understandings of what theory does/should do. That paranoia should become queer theory’s preferred methodology, and not just its object, speaks to some deeply rooted issues within contemporary queer theory/identity politics. Queer studies, perhaps to an even greater extent that feminist or critical race theory, has always been deeply preoccupied with the relationship between visibility and recognition (legal, social, political) on the one hand, and between visibility and violence (hate crimes, bullying, etc.) on the other. Queer theory’s mantra has become a combination of “Expose before you’re exposed” (#1 and #5) and “Never forget that the system really is out to get you” (#3 and #4). Sedgwick insists that this was by no means inevitable, and that it is possible (though difficult) to break the stranglehold paranoia has on contemporary theory. The problem is that paranoid thinking is contagious, and very teachable—whether we are intentionally taught it (in the grad school classroom) or happen to come into contact with in other ways (other people’s paranoia make us paranoid, in part because it makes us afraid that they’re going to get there first, see things we missed, and use the knowledge to expose or humiliate us).

Sedgwick’s definitions of paranoid vs. reparative reading have three primary sources: Melanie Klein, Silvan Tomkins, and Foucault (whose mid-career work is mostly paranoid, and late work, mostly reparative). Sedgwick advocates thinking about critical practice in terms of Kleinian “positions.” Though I haven’t read Klein, I think positions are sort of similar to Foucault’s notion of tactics or strategies of resistance. They emphasize practices of engagement over fixed identity positions, and are non-prescriptive, flexible, and responsive to the needs of the moment (rather than aiming at ideological purity, consistency, etc.). The paranoid position, Sedgwick writes, is “understandably marked by hatred, envy, and anxiety […] a position of terrible alertness to the dangers posed by the hateful and envious part-objects that one defensively projects into, carves out of, and ingests from the world around one” (128). She contrasts this with the depressive position, in a passage I think is beautiful enough to quote at length:

By contrast, the depressive position is an anxiety-mitigating achievement that the infant or adult only sometimes, and often only briefly, succeeds in inhabiting: this is the position from which it is possible in turn to use one’s own resources to assemble or ‘repair’ the murderous part-objects into something like a whole—though, I would emphasize, not necessarily like any preexisting whole. Once assembled to one’s own specifications, the more satisfying object is available to be both identified with and to offer one nourishment and comfort in turn. Among Klein’s names for the reparative process is love. (128)

Sedgwick associates the depressive position with a reparative reading practice. I love this definition, for a whole host of reasons. I like the idea that the work of repairing is actually work (which makes me think of that famous Audre Lorde quote: “Caring for myself is not self-indulgence. It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare”). I also like that a reparative practice doesn’t try to recreate a “preexisting whole” (whether remembered or imagined), but aims instead to produce “something like a whole” that is responsive to the needs of the moment and of the individual, and that makes use of the resources that are available to the individual. To me, that last part is important for thinking about how and where antiracist, antisexist, antihomophobic work gets done, and what tools are available to us in the process. Insisting on ideological purity is one of the surest ways to get nothing done. A post I saw on Tumblr recently makes the point well:

“Because Karl Marx was problematic, we’ll have to abandon his work. Because everyone is problematic, we’ll have to abandon everything. Just reblog memes, describe your privileges, sign petitions you don’t understand for countries you’ll never live in and make sure you continue jacking off to liberal identity politics. Revolutionary work.”

The point is, we work with what we have, salvaging what we can. Or, as Sedgwick puts it in her discussion of camp: “What we can best learn from such practices are, perhaps, the many ways selves and communities succeed in extracting sustenance from the objects of a culture—even of a culture whose avowed desire has often been not to sustain them” (150).  

A few more thoughts and questions to come.

to my undying shame, there are now MULTIPLE heterosexual pokemon streamers whose videos I watch because I am attracted to them

exigencelost:

exigencelost:

“I didn’t want to have to deal with Cassie’s hopefulness and Rachel’s concern and Marco’s abrasive skepticism.” You can tell this is a Tobias book. No one else has ever thought the phrase “Rachel’s concern.”

#this is jordan berenson erasure

So for the record I did think about Jordan Berenson when making this post and the post is about POV characters (“no one else has thought” as in “no one else has narrated the thought in view of the reader”) but you are correct, and you are right to call me out on this.

lesbianflaghistory:

Seeing a lot of misinformation flying around regarding lesbian flags this year, particularly the pink one, so here’s my attempt to set the record straight!

FAQ/Common Misconceptions and Sources are listed below the cut - if anything in this post contradicts what you’ve heard, I’d encourage you to read through them before responding.

Please DO NOT promote flag redesigns on this post :)

Keep reading

thaylepo:

sarifel-corrisafid-ilxhel:

thaylepo:

sarifel-corrisafid-ilxhel:

aniquotes:

“'You know, we’re not the only thing going on here,’ I said.

They all looked puzzled.

I took a deep breath. ‘I mean, you know, this forest is important even if Tobias and Ax weren’t here. It makes me sick to think of people chopping down all these trees.’

‘Oh, puh-leeze, not the Earth-Mother thing, okay?’ Marco said. ‘I almost got myself fried by a Dracon beam. That wasn’t to save Bambi, all right?’

‘Look, Marco, we are not the only animals around. We, of all people, ought to understand that.’

‘Cassie, who cares? We’re fighting to save the world from the Yeerks. Who cares about some ecology, tree-hugging, recycle-your-cans stuff?’

‘I do,’ I said.

‘Well, that’s you,’ Marco said. 'Personally, what I care about is the fact that a bunch of Yeerks have that, that fortress back there, and they’re going to use it to tear up these woods looking for us.’

I started to say something back, when Jake held up his hand. 'It seems to me it doesn’t matter whether we have slightly different ideas about why we care. I mean, either way, we want to stop this from going on. Right?'”

- Book #9: The Secret (Cassie), pg. 45 (by K.A. Applegate)

I absolutely love Jake’s response here. This is a good example of why he was the leader.

I personally find Cassie’s priorities a little off, but I can also see Marco is being unnecessarily hostile. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and say it’s because that’s what stressed teenagers do- they get hostile. But it’s still hostility, which can make cooperating difficult.

So seeing Jake step in and settle it so quickly without making either of them the bad guy is so, so perfect. Maybe after the war he can be one of those motivational speakers who talks about conflict resolution and stuff? I don’t like those guys, but they make a fair bit of money, and Jake has the experience.

Ok I had a long looong thing typed up but then my phone died and i lost it, so I'ma summarize:

Cassie’s priorities are not “off”, they’re just not as simple as Marco’s. Marco is the clear A to B guy, Cassie is the one who can subconsciously disentangle an altered timeline because she acts on cause and effect so many steps apart she’s not even fully aware of being aware of them. Especially this early in the series (book 9 of 54).

Consider: Marco has had an apartment dwelling, computer and video games, worry about my dad and affording groceries kinda life. Of course he boils things down to the simplest elements. Cassie, on the other had, grew up on land owned and farmed by her family since the Civil War. She’s very connected to it, to her sense of “home” and identity. She’s very involved with her parents’ vet work, her farm, her land, the forest around it and the animals that live in it. She knows where her food comes from, and it’s not the grocery store (even if they don’t grow crops on her farm, she’s still much more aware of that). Her farm probably uses well water, instead of treated city water. The air she breathes, the water she drinks, she knows how dependent she is on all the things around her to make it, and all the things that could happen to make it unusable, unsurvivable.

In this quote Cassie is trying to make them understand that the forest isn’t just a thing that exists that they can go “oh neat” and then go home to the urban development they live in. It’s part of Earth, it needs protecting for being part of Earth, because humans are part of Earth and they also need all the things on it to survive, whether they know it or not. Maybe one forest is not that crucial, but neither is one town. One school. One person’s brother, or mother. Let it be destroyed, even bit by bit, and they’ll still lose. Humanity is done, either way.

Look, these books are from the 90s, when people were still hoping my generation could have a turning effect on environmentalism if we were made aware how important it was. Cassie gets shit on by the fandom for being a buzzkill, for caring about baby skunks when she’s supposed to be saving humanity, for reminding everyone not to go completely fucking feral and lose their own humanity in the fight to save it. It’s kind of telling, in a lot of ways, how we receive these books both then and now, because without her voice this would be a deeply, deeply different story.

Tl;dr - Marco “mr. Big Picture” ironically just defines humanity as humans, but to Cassie humans are one of a billion parts of the bigger thing that is “Earth”. These characters are intentionally set as narrative foils, and they are both equally crucial to the team and to the story. They both need to be heard here, regardless of who the reader agrees with. It doesn’t matter at all, actually, who the reader agrees with, because they are BOTH right, even if at this point further arguing is unproductive cuz in the end, they do have to save the damn forest even if they disagree on why.

The reason Cassie’s priorities feel off to me is because the Animorphs were already trying to figure out what to do about the Yeerks attacking the forest. They were already going to try to save it for the reasons of resisting the Yeerks and saving the place two of the Animorphs live (and I think Cassie’s house was at risk too, since it is canonically nearby).

Cassie wants to make it more moral, though. And that’s what feels off to me, priority-wise: the Animorphs already have the greatest moral and ethical imperative there is. Save the planet from the Yeerks. There is no greater good than that, because if the Animorphs don’t stop the Yeerks, the Yeerks will enslave every creature they can, kill the ones they can’t, and destroy every forest on the planet. We learned that back in book 7.

I like Cassie and I agree with her 95% of the time. But here, it feels like she can’t see the forest for the trees (pun not intended).

And that is also true! She can’t, or at least has trouble, seeing the forest for the trees. But to her it’s important to remind everyone the other reasons for protecting the forest besides its usefulness to them. Cus you’re right, this time they’ve decided they have to act. Next time…..they might not. Next time it might not be something useful or important to them, but she’ll remind them they need to act anyway. And I think there’s books where this happens, and she does this, and they decide not to, and they end up having to act anyway for reasons they hadn’t foreseen, and could have gained an advantage if they’d just listened to Cassie.

There might also be some genuine disconnect in this scene, too. Like, she’s bringing this up because no one else has, and she can’t understand why they don’t also think it’s important. This is their town! It’s their forest! Their animals! It’s bad enough humans do this, but the Yeerks have no right.

It goes back to what Ax told her in book 4, that the Yeerks won’t just take all the humans as hosts and leave it there. They’ll stripmine Earth, destroy everything, reduce it to a wasteland with a fraction of habitable space, and wipe out every living thing they don’t have a use for. That’s what she sees happening here, and a reason to fight them on it’s own, and the others dismiss it as her just being Mama Earthy. It’s her finding her reasons to fight, like Marco found his when he was about to quit in book 5.

The rest of the book, of course, has Marco becoming ridiculously attached to their baby skunk family because of course he does, the forest is just a forest to him until Joey, Johnny, Marky and CJ live there, excuse you those are his skunks now bitch. It’s just a key difference in how they operate. Marco says “these skunks in particular”, Cassie says “all the skunks and everything else besides”, and Jake gently reminds them they’re gonna protect the forest anyway, please save it for the yeerks.

to my binary trans comrades -

so I think I need to make this post about the whole “queer is a slur” thing.

I know y'all are tired of hearing about it. Trust me, I’ve seen the posts. I know it’s been frustrating to see cis queer people talk about this issue that doesn’t affect you directly in a way that often overshadows deeper discussions about what’s happening in the world. Like were in a time of immense reactionary backlash. conservatives and transphobes (including TERFs but also like the same conservative white Christian supremacists that are behind so much terrible stuff in North America) are enacting violence and medical gatekeeping on a massive scale in states across the country (including my home state of NC). It’s terrifying! I’m deeply anxious as a genderqueer person because I’m watching decades of the slow process of acceptance being washed away.

but I need to talk about this because I’ve been increasingly seeing posts telling people to stop saying that the policing and rejection of the word “queer” is rooted in transphobia.

and I’m not just seeing it from cis binary people. i’m seeing it from y'all too. and while I can’t speak for all nonbinary and gnc people, for me at least it hurts a lot more to have binary trans people start repeating the whole “queer is a slur stop using it” thing, because it’s not coming from our oppressors this time, it’s coming from our own communities. it’s coming from people who should know better, people who have also experienced a world that constantly misgenders us and demonizes us and sees us either as threats or as objects of pity.

because the thing is, the reason “queer” is being picked out and made into a dirty word is precisely because it’s the best word to describe us. it’s not targeted at binary cis queers, it’s targeted at nonbinary and gender non-conforming people, people who don’t fit easily into the L, the G, the B, or the T. it’s to force us to misgender ourselves in order to talk about our experiences, our ways of being in the world, our sexualities and those of the people who love us. it’s an attempt to silence us and delegitimize our political organizing. it’s a backlash against the gains we’ve made toward gender autonomy - gains that binary trans people have been pushing for just as much as we have!

and I know this is not all binary trans people. it’s not even most! binary trans people have been our staunchest allies as nonbinary people, and I hope that you’ve felt and seen our solidarity too.

but it’s because of that solidarity that I’m asking that you understand. “queer is a slur” is not some weird Tumblr semantic argument that cis queer people are having. it is an organized transphobic ideological attack against people who don’t fit the gender binary. please don’t play into it.

[binary cis people, y'all can reblog this but your commentary is not needed]

andreii-tarkovsky:

We didn’t have a word for our, as you guys call, gay/lesbian people. So we coined that word as an umbrella for all our tribes. We never said, “Well, you’re transgender. You’re bisexual. You’re lesbian.” We never knew those terms. Those are all from Western culture, you know, LGBTQ and all that. So on some level, it’s about getting rid of labels. Those terms were forced upon us.

Anonymous asked: do you have an "about" page with relevant information about yourself (eg pronouns, a name you go by, etc)? only i like your blog but always feel strange about following blogs with no face so to speak

blurds:

I’ve answered this before so we’re going to do this bullet points style

-If there are categories of people you don’t want to follow please assume I belong to all of them

-If you need my demographic info before you can decide if you agree with my opinion or not please disagree with my opinions

-Please assume I am up to no good - this is a good thing to assume with any blog on here - even blogs with faces may be no-faces in disguise

-All of the information you want has been posted here at one time or another if you want to know but I like having that threshold of difficulty in place - if you want to get your creep on I want you to have to work for it

-I am hoping the irony of your having sent this ask anonymously is not lost on you

And, for all bloggers everywhere, a quick reminder: you don’t owe anybody jack shit!

nerdygaymormon:

queenanne1532:

bendingsignpost:

shutyourmoustache:

What instruments do you play?

Him: yes

[Tiktok: white text asking “Musicians, what instruments do you play?” Cuts to a man asking the question aloud. Cuts to another man in a pink shirt who proceeds to play ‘Fireflies’ by Owl City on a seemingly unending series of instruments, initially only doing one note of the song per instrument.]

More like “What instruments do you play?” “Wind”

lapillus:

• An Oxford comma walks into a bar where it spends the evening watching the television, getting drunk, and smoking cigars.
• A dangling participle walks into a bar. Enjoying a cocktail and chatting with the bartender, the evening passes pleasantly.
• A bar was walked into by the passive voice.
• An oxymoron walked into a bar, and the silence was deafening.
• Two quotation marks walk into a “bar.”
• A malapropism walks into a bar, looking for all intensive purposes like a wolf in cheap clothing, muttering epitaphs and casting dispersions on his magnificent other, who takes him for granite.
• Hyperbole totally rips into this insane bar and absolutely destroys everything.
• A question mark walks into a bar?
• A non sequitur walks into a bar. In a strong wind, even turkeys can fly.
• Papyrus and Comic Sans walk into a bar. The bartender says, “Get out – we don’t serve your type.”
• A mixed metaphor walks into a bar, seeing the handwriting on the wall but hoping to nip it in the bud.
• A comma splice walks into a bar, it has a drink and then leaves.
• Three intransitive verbs walk into a bar. They sit. They converse. They depart.
• A synonym strolls into a tavern.
• At the end of the day, a cliché walks into a bar – fresh as a daisy, cute as a button, and sharp as a tack.
• A run-on sentence walks into a bar it starts flirting. With a cute little sentence fragment.
• Falling slowly, softly falling, the chiasmus collapses to the bar floor.
• A figure of speech literally walks into a bar and ends up getting figuratively hammered.
• An allusion walks into a bar, despite the fact that alcohol is its Achilles heel.
• The subjunctive would have walked into a bar, had it only known.
• A misplaced modifier walks into a bar owned a man with a glass eye named Ralph.
• The past, present, and future walked into a bar. It was tense.
• A dyslexic walks into a bra.
• A verb walks into a bar, sees a beautiful noun, and suggests they conjugate. The noun declines.
• A simile walks into a bar, as parched as a desert.
• A gerund and an infinitive walk into a bar, drinking to forget.
• A hyphenated word and a non-hyphenated word walk into a bar and the bartender nearly chokes on the irony.
–David Needle

@deadcatwithaflamethrower, a brief linguistic distraction.

filmnoirsbian:

filmnoirsbian:

I love getting unaccompanied minors (kids flying alone) who so clearly just. Don’t want to be here lol. Sometimes I get to know a little of their story, like their parents are divorced, or a family member died and they’re heading to the funeral, but usually they just don’t want to talk about it and that’s fine. But I always treat the flight like it’s a challenge to make them smile. I offer them snacks and soda but that’s never enough, that’s whatever, they could get those from an airport vending machine. Chump change. So then I tell the worst jokes. Just the most embarrassing, kindergarten teacher, annoying dad jokes you can think of. And those always get a groan, or a “Seriously??” And that’s my in! Now I can say “Why, what’s your idea of a good joke? No, come on hotshot, make your best joke, let’s see it.” And they hem and they haw but of course they eventually tell me their very best joke because kids are little competitive comedy goldmines. And it’s always super funny, so I laugh, and that’s where they slip up. Because you know what you almost always do when your joke successfully makes someone laugh? You smile. And I’m like. Gotcha. Rookie move. Now you’re going to end up having a good time in spite of yourself. I win.

Did this with an 11yo u.m. today and he said “What did the ghost say to the other ghost?” And I said “What?” “Nothing. Ghosts aren’t real.”

wumblr:

shoutout to all the gays languishing on my dash… don’t worry baby, you’ll get a boyfriend or a chaise lounge someday. i’m getting the chaise lounge! gonna languish SO hard

(via martian-night)

penicillium-pusher:

I have an internship for a sex ed organization and the stomach drop I just felt after opening a working doc to find lgbtq definitions and half of them are outdated or offensive has me so discouraged lmfao

Re: Tags - My favorite bi definition is “Attracted to people with similar genders to yourself and to people with different genders from yourself”