DON'T BE INDIFFERENT

To be sure, most Mormons aren’t Nazis and don’t have favorable views of Nazis, but they are about as reactionary as Nazis, particularly with their obedience to the church hierarchy. Mormons like the conservative who hates everyone the fascists hate, but hates the fascists because “I’m an American, and we Americans love democracy and hate fascists,” obviously knowing nothing about, say, Chile in 1973, or how NATO was totally cool all that time working with Spain while Franco was still in charge, or how American industrialists coordinated with the Nazis before the war, or literally anything about the deeper history of America and fascism. But whether they know how fascist they are or not, they’re comfortable doing fascism, and a hiccup away from realizing they really do fundamentally agree with fascism, so long as their “prophet” is in charge.

A small excerpt from one of Joseph Smiths “revelations”

they also own the Polynesian Cultural Center in Hawaii and several elementary and secondary schools in mexico and the pacific islands. given the information previously provided in this post, this is particularly alarming.

during the obama romney election the leaders of the church sent out a letter to be read in every congregation that was like…remember to vote in a way that god would appreciate or else :) he may be upset w you :)

they also have $32 billion in business assets that they handle through church-owned finance companies (look up Deseret Management Corporation) so they don’t have to report their expenses. their holdings include swaths of land in utah, america’s 14th largest radio chain, and utah’s largest newspaper. oh and they’re just sitting on SO MUCH FUCKING LAND WHY DO HTYE OWN SO MUCH LAND????

It is terrifying and incredibly difficult to get out of.

Anyway, I felt I should address why I focused more on Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island and South America in this post, than on Black people - actually, looking back, I didn’t mention Black people at all.

It isn’t at all out of ignorance of Black people and Black issues wrt the LDS church, nor is it out of a belief that Indigenous issues supersede Black issues; it’s not oppression Olympics (which would be a stupid “game” for me to “play”, anyway, as I am literally a white Anglo-American with, so far as I know, no BIPOC ancestry). Rather, as an ex-mormon, I’ve noticed more attention is paid, when talking about racism in the church, to the priesthood ban, and Brigam Young’s subscription to the belief that the Curses of Ham and Cain referred to Black people, than to the inherent doctrinal racism against Indigenous peoples of the continents of the “New World”. Ex-Mormons and other critics will occasionally joke about how dumb the doctrine is - and it’s dumb! It’s very dumb! But it isn’t just dumb. Mormon settlers kept slaves - not just African slaves, but, after moving into Utah, they kept Paiute slaves, as well. I don’t know for sure, but my own ancestors may have kept these slaves. I descend from the Ballard’s, a family long-established in the church, and well-to-do, so it’s certainly possible, even likely. If memory serves, Mormons also fought in the Black Hawk war; obviously, they did so on the side of the American settlers.

"Without shelter people die"

“IF I DIE TONIGHT… IT’S MURDER”

John Green, during his time on tumblr, committed the heinous sins of...being neurodivergent and talking openly about it, earnestly interacting with fans in a very direct and unfiltered way, and writing about teenagers navigating first love and sexuality while he himself was an adult. The worst things he ever did were be a little cringe or misspeak, for which he was always prompt to apologize (often whether he really needed to or not).

Yet despite the former two being things tumblr claimed to love and the last one being true of 99.99% of YA authors, in this case a large segment of tumblr users steeped in the early 2010s resurgence of purity culture decided that these things were suspicious and predatory, and used that as an excuse to justify some truly awful behavior.

Which is really all that cancel culture is: the normalization and even celebration of the process of misapplying morality or ethics to dehumanize someone for the express purpose of justifying whatever pain and suffering you want to inflict upon them. Basically, deciding "this person is bad, so I am exempt from affording them basic respect and human dignity, and am allowed to cross any and all otherwise uncrossable lines in order to punish them without damaging my own moral or ethical standing."

Contrary to popular tumblr lore, the infamous "cock monologue" was not the sum total of the harassment, or even the worst of it. Callout blogs issued long lists of "receipts" about how terrible John Green was, most if not all of which were either taken out of context or completely refutable. His works were torn to shreds by people who'd never read them, as evidenced by much of the criticism being obviously and blatantly counter to the actual contents of the books.

Not that it mattered. Once the John Green hate party reached a certain level of critical mass, it became less about who he actually was or what he'd done, and more about proving you were a good person by hating him. That's the natural conclusion of cancel culture, after all: virtue signalling by identifying yourself in opposition to the cancelled parties. They're bad, and I'm good, so I hate them! Or, more often: They're bad, and I hate them, so I'm good!

Before it was over with, John Green had been accused, with no evidence, of being everything from a Nazi to a pedophile and subjected to hate mail and death threats. He eventually left the site for the sake of his own mental health, and because he no longer felt comfortable engaging directly with fans in the same way he once had.

Yet even now, with the benefit of hindsight, and even among those who ostensibly reject purity culture and condem bullying and harassment, very few on tumblr take what was done to John Green as seriously as it should be taken or condemn it as thoroughly as it should be condemned. Which I think is something we need to at least consider doing, given the increasing rise of purity and cancel culture online, and given the recent influx of professional creators eager to interact with fans on a more direct level than they have on other social media.

And my concern is not purely, or even primarily, for the Mike Flanagans and Lynda Carters of the world. I'm far more concerned, actually, for the small, independent or self-published creators in this space, and how much even a very small level of visibility gives too many people a feeling of carte blanche to engage in harassment.

I myself have less than 3k followers on here, a handful of popular posts, and zero notoriety or consequence outside of tumblr whatsoever, and I've been repeatedly told to kill myself for saying such innocuous things as "I don't think censorship is the cure for the world's evils" and "maybe learning the history of communities you want to participate in would be a good idea."

the fucking attack helicopter joke has been around since 2014!! leslie feinberg was born in 1949 and ze used ze/hir pronouns and obviously made comics about hir and hir communities identity and life! phalloplasty was first described in 1938!! christine jorgensen had surgery in the 50s to transition and published her biography in the 60s! even in the 1800s writers were talking about the need for *gender neutral* pronouns in both fiction and nonfiction!

yes, social media has let trans and queer people spread more knowledge about pronouns and identity, but acting like none of it even existed till the 2010s or even sooner is... concerning.

Transcript:

(Speaker is facing a door at the back of the room. They turn around to face the camera in a wheelchair. Speaking begins)

Speaker: “So my neighbour saw me in my wheelchair for the first time today and asked what was wrong and if I was okay so welcome to my new segment-”

(Speaker slowly stands up out of wheelchair)

(A very quick transition and a black cane appears in their right hand. The wheelchair is no longer on screen)

(The title ‘Cane and Ableism’ flashes up on screen in bigger yellow font)

Speaker: “So shocking bit of info up top, I’m disabled. But whether I’m using this”

(Speaker gestures to cane. There’s a very quick transition where the cane disappears and is replaced by two red forearm crutches)

Speaker: “Or this. Or wheelchair.”

(Another transition. The forearm crutches disappear. The wheelchair is back on screen and the speaker slowly sits back down)

Speaker: “It shouldn’t be treated any differently. However whether it is consciously or subconsciously, society has created a hierarchy, a evolutionary chart of disability mobility aids, where wheelchairs, power chairs are at the bottom.”

(A short pause. Speaker stands up. Wheelchair disappears after a transition and the red forearm crutches return)

Speaker: “Crutches, walkers etc. In the middle”

(Right forearm crutch is held up higher and then another transition. The Crutches are replaced again with the black cane in the right hand)

Speaker: “The cane is just above that, and, of course, the alpha….”

(cane disappears, there are no mobility aids in shot)

Speaker: “To nothing at all. Now this is where it can get tricky, and this line of thinking can lead to ableism and internalised ableism, because the people who need mobility aids are doing everything they can to fight against it so they can stay right here.”

(speaker gestures to self, standing without the aid of a mobility aid)

Speaker: “So is here better? Well for me personally, here’s where I have the most pain. Now if I were to go to this”

(Quick transition. Cane pops back into frame in speaker’s right hand)

Speaker: “This (the cane) has less pain.”

(Transition between cane and red forearm crutches. The cane is gone. The crutches are on either arm.)

Speaker: “This (the forearm crutches) is less pain”

(Transition. Forearm crutches have disappeared. The wheelchair is back on screen. The speaker lowers themself to sit in it.)

Speaker: “And this (the wheelchair) barely any pain at all. So when we say what’s better, what we’re really saying is what’s better for society, when we should be saying what’s better for you.”

(Speaker points quickly to the camera)

Speaker: “And you’re the one that matters the most.”

I initially was ambivalent to Amber Heard. Before I began to research the case, I was firmly in the “they both suck” camp, having only briefly glanced through articles. I started to pay more attention to the media coverage over the past six weeks and was really staggered by how Heard was being portrayed as a lying, crazy, gold-digging woman through narratives that were not only going unchallenged, but were heavily perpetuated in the public discourse. Even worse, that the abuse she experienced had been capitalized on by “true crime” junkies and mocked in TikTok videos and Youtube compilations. So I began watching the trial live and found that there was far more evidence and far more substantial evidence which shows that JD was the perpetrator of abuse within their relationship.

The evidence collected through JD’s personal texts and emails show an early pattern of abuse. He exerted control over the clothes Amber wore and would become angry when she didn’t dress “conservatively”. He would consistently accuse her of having affairs with acquaintances, friends, and various co-stars, even with an openly gay director, Clive Barker. He didn’t like that she was ambitious and would scorn her when she took opportunities to advance her career. He would constantly refer to her with misogynistic language. He also referred to Amber, an openly bisexual woman, as a “lesbian camp counsellor”. He messaged other men to discuss killing her through drowning and burning her, and then raping her burnt corpse to prove that she was truly dead. This all occurred while they were still dating. She was in her early 20s and he was in 50s. All of these coercive, paranoid, jealous, controlling behaviours are deeply and unequivocally abusive.

None of this includes the evidence which shows physical and sexual abuse. There are audio tapes in which he admits to headbutting her, so hard that she was concerned her nose was broken. In another recording, they discuss how her family and friends have seen her bruises, broken blood vessels, and bald spots from her hair being torn out of her scalp. In another one, she screams “stop hitting me!” Another shows him stating “I will smack the ugly c**t before I let her in.” A video shows him aggressively breaking and smashing furniture near her. One interaction reveals that Stephen Deuters, his assistant, begged her to come back to him after her assaulted her on a plane in front of his bodyguards, pleading to her that JD was remorseful for his actions. Heard also has stated he sexually assaulted her multiple times. Remember, he previously discussed violently raping her in those infamous messages to Paul Bettany.

As for witnesses, several testified to seeing bruises on her numerous times, including JD’s witnesses, such as their marriage counsellor. A makeup artist, Melanie Inglessis, testified to covering swelling on her lip and two black eyes. Raquel Pennington saw several injuries, including bloodied bald spots on her head, a swollen nose, and cut lip. She expressed fear JD would eventually kill Amber if she didn’t leave. Josh Drew also testified to seeing her with injuries, including black eyes, a swollen cheek, and a busted lip. iO Tillet Wright (who Depp misgenders throughout his testimony) recalled hearing JD assault Amber and scream “oh, you think I hit you? You think I fucking hit you? What if I peel your fucking hair back“. iO then called 911. This was the incident which led Heard to file for a divorce and a restraining order, two days afterwards. It is worth noting that Pennington, Drew, and Wright all corroborated this incident in their depositions, as did iO’s 2016 essay.

Is she guilty of fighting back? Absolutely. She never lied about doing so, even dating back to her 2016 deposition. However, fighting back against a man who has beaten you, sexually assaulted you, controlled your career, finances, and who you can associate with does not equate to being an abuser. It’s simply surviving. And yes, I’ve heard those audio tapes, the in which she’s expresses her incredulity at him for stating their fights were fair when she feared he would kill her.

His case has relied upon deeply misogynistic narratives to discredit both her claims and her character. She was after his money all along, even though she refused the 30 million dollar fortune she was legally entitled to, as there was no prenup. She painted on bruises, even though a makeup artist testified to covering up her swollen lip and two black eyes. She cut off his finger, even though multiple texts and even an audio recording showcase him admitting to doing it in the midst of a bender. She didn’t donate her money, even though she and the organization created a 10 year plan for her to make yearly payments (in my personal opinion, what she does with her money either way is nobody’s fucking business). Also worth noting, an ACLU representative testified to her being ahead of schedule until Depp began suing her. She made up a hoax, because she documented her abuse - as we advise all people who are in abusive situations to do. She’s a liar, because women are inherently deceitful liars.

None of the evidence that JD’s attorneys presented has proven that she defamed him through her op-ed piece. That’s likely because their goal was never to prove that her article - which never explicitly references him or their relationship - impacted his career. Those who watched the trial will know, Tracy Jacobs, his agent of 30 years stated that it was his drug and alcohol abuse, anger issues, chronic lateness (7 or 8 hours late to set each day), and unprofessionalism that led to his career decline. Film crews grew tired of working around these problems, and eventually, so did Hollywood. Tina Newman, a Disney Corporate Representative who worked on POTC stated no one knew of Amber’s op-ed until Depp sued her. 

The trial was always meant to humiliate, shame, and terrorize her. We are witnessing in a powerful man terrorize his ex-wife through the legal system, all while the world makes TikToks of her sexual assault testimony. JD has a documented history of violence and is due for another court date after assaulting a crew member of the set of City of Lies. To quote his own words, “If I’m angry and I’ve got to lash out or hit somebody, I’m going to do it and I don’t care what the repercussions are. Anger doesn’t pay rent, it’s gotta go. It’s gotta be evicted.”

"... “I’m taking action because I feel desperate,” said U.S. climate scientist Peter Kalmus, who along with several others locked himself to the front door of a JPMorgan Chase building in Los Angeles. A recent report found that the financial giant is the biggest private funder of oil and gas initiatives in the world.

April 6, 2022

LAPD show up in riot gear to a climate protest against JPMorgan Chase to arrest 4 climate scientists.

LAPD receives $8,000,000 of public money a day.

Mostly I'm watching black people I know express distaste with non-black people ignoring the context of what happened, thankfully no one I follow is clowning where I can see it.

But I'm watching arguments about 'toxic masculinity' (can you call defending your wife from someone being a dick to her 'toxic masculinity'???) and 'male violence' (I know PLENTY of black women who would backhand someone talking about them like that) and 'abusive' (fellas is it abuse to defend your wife's honor in a way you likely were taught yourself?) etc etc and they're all ignoring the actual context of what happened.

A black man who knew better made an offensive and ableist joke about a black woman's medical condition that drastically changed her appearance and caused her to sacrifice something culturally important to her, on live TV in front of an audience, and her black husband got on stage and confronted the problem the same way it would have played out if this was not a televised event.

It's wild to me that people aren't connecting the dots. "He shouldn't have used violence" sure and Chris Rock shouldn't have made the joke but he did and he got what he knew he would have gotten if he'd said it anywhere else. He was part of that hair documentary. He KNOWS BETTER. I got popped just like that for a comment about a black woman's hair when I was 8. There are lines and he crossed them. And unlike my 8yo self, he knew where those lines were when he chose to open his mouth.

as you absolutely already know, obv. but like. yes. Rock's douchery had layers and he knew exactly what kind of nastiness he was pulling, and he was executing that nastiness in a venue where he must have thought he could force Smith to observe without being able to do anything about it: Smith was up for an Oscar himself, he had to attend, Jaida essentially had to attend, Rock is on stage--what the hell is Will Smith going to do to him if he makes that joke? The more humiliating he can make it, the more powerful he feels, and yeah, you are correct and he knew precisely what kind of target he was aiming at, because the more humiliating and painful the joke he can make without retaliation from Will Smith the more he can get off on how much power and control he can exert. Which, you know, totally consistent with Chris Rock's everything.

It's an interesting incident in terms of just how much social context layers onto it to underscore exactly how much of an offensive, nasty, asshole Chris Rock was being there--again--and also in terms of how much weight and context hangs on everything Will Smith chose to do and why. As You Know Jaz the standards that even wealthy and famous and powerful black men are held to are so different from what wealthy and famous and powerful white men are, and especially given the weird dynamics of being minority people in a majoritarian institution--there's so much pressure there to navigate, the stakes are so high!

like, I guarantee to you that the choice to slap Chris Rock rather than punching him was a thing Will Smith made an active decision about based on calculations about the signal that sent: how much aggression vs control does he calculate that both Rock, a generalized black audience, and a generalized white audience will see? how much context does he need to underscore? you can see Chris Rock trying to weasel out and make Will Smith look unreasonable ("I said G. I. Jane!") and Will Smith is just totally unyielding. He's got to make sure he comes off as both angry and principled and also completely controlled and it's just, it's such a great example of a thwarted power play on this enormous stage.

The Smiths have had a very public eye on the situation with the cheating and so for Rock to stand on stage and point to her and call her "GI Jane" aka an ugly, mannish, brutish, bald woman knowing that Will is still smarting after the hordes of cuckhold jokes he's been subject to... there's this feeling of 'haha your wife's ugly now, you couldn't keep her when she was pretty do you think she'll stay now that she's ugly, maybe you'll cheat now that she's hideous, lol isn't that so funny' to it knowing their marriage problems are very, very much exposed to the public.

There's also the racial aspect of black women especially with shorter hair being called exactly that: ugly, brutish, mannish for not fitting white femininity. And Rock knows, he fucking KNOWS that, that's a racially charged statement to make and he did it anyway and this is why I'm constantly harping on how black people absolutely can further antiblackness despite being black themselves. Rock was raised by a black woman and he has black women in his life and he KNOWS and he chose to do it anyway because he thought it'd be funny and he'd get away with it because who confronts a comedian on live TV and especially at an awards show?

I am just! How the fuck! people.

Leather is good actually. Veganism isn’t the end all be all to morality and consumption. The issue isn’t that a chicken died for those nuggets, but that while the chicken was alive, it’s life fucking sucked. Vegan chocolate means little if the cocoa that made it was gathered by child slave labor.