Lost in Translation...

今日は晩酌なし。

晩飯はナスのパスタにサラダ。ちょっとの間、また禁酒。

#パスタ

the op linked the study in the replies & i’ve been skimming it & it’s actually rlly rlly interesting to think abt

in the appendix (which you can find by scrolling down) CA:TWS is listed as having one torture scene, which immediately made me wonder because there are two that I can think of.

further on in the appendix when the authors are discussing the criteria for including torture, they give the vault scene in CA:TWS as an example of a scene that isn't torture, with the justification that Bucky seems to comply with his captors, and given the information shown on screen we can't conclude whether or not Bucky is a willing participant in the "wipe." Willing participants cannot be tortured, therefore the vault scene is not counted as torture

That is a WILD take on that scene. "doesn't fight back" does not equal "not being tortured" come on now

now, I could see disqualifying the vault scene as being a torture scene on the basis that the purpose of the "wipe" is not to inflict pain, it just happens to be an extremely painful process.

That's an interesting take. Is doing something incredibly painful or distressing to a person torture when there is ostensibly a secondary purpose to the painful thing, even though it also clearly doubles as a way of inflicting suffering and asserting power? This is a really important question to answer, since a lot of instances of torture and mistreatment in prisons and military situations etc. seem to fall under this. e.g. a strip search is nominally for "security" purposes, but it is also forced nudity which is a common form of sexual violence inflicted as part of torture.

But disqualifying the scene because there is not enough evidence that Bucky is being coerced to do it is nuts, since immediately prior Bucky gets slapped in the face for not answering a question and doesn't retaliate, and immediately before that Bucky gets a bunch of guns pointed at him when he acts up

That's another important question. Does being forced to comply with or participate in your own torture disqualify it from being torture?

The answer is, to me, obviously no, and in fact this seems like a relatively common feature of torture: e.g. forcing prisoners to dig their own graves requires a good amount of compliance from the victim and that's a major reason why it's so distressing

This study made a lot of assumptions about torture I don't know if I agree with, and the more I think about it the more disagreeing I am. For example, It also split torture up into punitive torture vs. torture for information, but I think that misses some significant motivations behind torture, which are torture out of sheer hatred or contempt, or torture to enforce power and dominance over a person.

It seems similar to the way rape is discussed: it is assumed to be motivated by a certain thing (sexual desire) and to have a certain context, which narrows the ability to recognize sexual violence in the world when it has the pretext of some other motivation, or when it happens in a situation that isn't expected.

When doing some academic reading on torture (inspired by Jacob Geller's video essay) I came across a quote that was like, "All rape is torture and all torture is rape." I think there's a reason those are different words and it's useful to have them both, but it gave me something to think about.

I think I don't quite wrap my head around why hazing happens yet, but it seems on an intuitive level very connected to other forms of mob violence/ violence perpetrated by a group. It is inherently connected to the idea of in-group and out-group, and by experiencing the violence you become part of the in-group, which means you get a turn at perpetrating it.

6月17日(水)

本日直売日です、16:00〜はじめます

ご利用ください

PS sorry for the war flashbacks

Brave of you to assume that shit isn't everywhere still today.

Look what's coming

Just around the corner

Here comes Diego swaying

With the moon in his eyes

And in his aquamarine suit

There are remnants of contraband

And where there's no room for another soul

He squeezes in to let loose

Possessed by the ragatanga rhythm

And the DJ who knows him

Plays the twelve o'clock anthem

For Diego, the most desired song

And he dances it, and enjoys it, and sings it

Aserejé, ja, dejé

Dejebe tu dejebere seibiunouva

Majavi an de bugui an de buididipi

Aserejé, ja, dejé

Dejebe tu dejebere seibiunouva

Majavi an de bugui an de buididipi

Aserejé, ja, dejé

Dejebe tu dejebere seibiunouva

Majavi an de bugui an de buididipi

So, the conspiracy theory was that the "Diego" in the song is the Devil himself, who's going from bar to bar looking for souls to collect. The moon is on his eyes because he doesn't have pupils, and the possession talk is about him literally posessing people through the rhythm to drag them to hell.

For the few who haven't figured it out, Diego was high on coke.

His English is terrible so the "incantation" part of the song, which supposedly is how you summon Satan, was actually supposed to be this:

To top it off, the cover of the album was this:

Which was interpreted as a 666, similar to the Beatles conspiracy theories, meaning the album was sanctifying its listeners for the Devil's glory. The whole thing was madness and no one figured it out until like 2015, when they themselves clarified what the song was supposed to mean.

these are images from a 1930s pamphlet that endorsed kudzu, entitled "stop gullies: save your farm"

It was disturbing to say the least.