tokenblkgirl:

palaceoffunk:

So, I was thinking about BBC Sherlock fandom’s hate-on for Sally Donovan, and just earlier today I was talking with Maria about Tara Thorton’s shitty treatment in True Blood.

And then I made myself a list.

You’re not fooling anyone, fandom. I know what’s up.

They want these women to be invisible and get upset when they’re not. Then they’re bitches, sexless (i.e. no chemistry with ANYONE), or sluts. And it’s not like the show writers don’t have the same problem, those tropes are a consistent fallback when it comes to any major characterization of black female characters. But when they step out of those tropes (Bonnie becoming more assertive, not just a support system for the white female lead; Martha wanting the Doctor to see her in a romantic way, not just as a support system for the white lead; Gwen being the LOVE object of several male characters, not just a support system for the white lead)  fandom goes apeshit cause their worldview is being messed with. These women are not supposed to be important, loved, complicated in their minds, just easily forgotten once the episode is over. 

whiporwill:

Apparently, terrorism is only terrorism if committed by a Muslim. Otherwise, it’s extremism.

For much of the day yesterday, the featured headline on The New York Times online front page strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits.  The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, as James Fallows notes, remains at the Post with no corrections or updates.  The morning statement issued by President Obama — “It’s a reminder that the entire international community holds a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring” and “we have to work cooperatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks” — appeared to assume, though (to its credit) without overtly stating, that the perpetrator was an international terrorist group. 

But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn’t from an international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather a right-wing Norwegian nationalist with a history of anti-Muslim commentary and an affection for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller’s Atlas Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch.  Despite that, The New York Times is still working hard to pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals:

Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda’s brutality and multiple attacks.

“If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al Qaeda,” said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.

Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn’t, even when it’s allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European nationalist.  Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought to detonate bombs in government buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivated shooting rampages.  The NYT speculates that amonium nitrate fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus could have access to that material; of course nobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make a massive bomb had it not been for Al Qaeda.  So all this proves once again what a menacing threat radical Islam is.

Then there’s this extraordinarily revealing passage from the NYT — first noticed by Richard Silverstein — explaining why the paper originally reported what it did:

Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.

There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible.

In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know — by definition — that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant — also by definition — that it was an act of Terrorism.  As Silverstein put it: 

How’s that again? Are the only terrorists in the world Muslim? If so, what do we call a right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down scores of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause? If even a liberal newspaper like the Times can’t call this guy a terrorist, what does that say about the mindset of the western world?

What it says is what we’ve seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target.  Indeed, in many (though not all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) to no, this isn’t Terrorism, just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn’t). 

thedailywhat:

This Is Important, You Should Know About It of the Day: Republican presidential nomination hopeful Michele Bachmann is the first candidate to sign the “pro-marriage” pledge of conservative Christian group The Family Leader.

According to the Des Moines Register, those who sign “The Marriage Vow” [pdf] agree “to personal fidelity to his or her spouse, the appointment of ‘faithful constitutionalists’ as judges, opposition to any redefinition of marriage, and prompt reform of uneconomic and anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy and divorce law.”

The vow also affirms the signee’s belief that homosexuality is a public health risk and a choice, and on par with polygamy and polyandry.

Worse still is the vow’s shocking suggestion that children born into African-American families under slavery were better off than they are today because they were “more likely to be raised by [their] mother and father in a two-parent household.”

And, finally, for good measure, candidates who sign the pledge must also make a point of rejecting Sharia law.

A spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul has expressed reservations on behalf of the congressman, while Tim Pawlenty’s spokesman said the former Minnesota governor was reviewing the document. Most of the other candidates refused to comment on their plans; only Jon Huntsman has stated (through an aide) that he will not sign the pledge as he “never signs any pledges.” Family Leader CEO Bob Vander Plaats — who was state chair of Mike Huckabee’s Republican presidential campaign in 2008 — said his organization will only support candidates who sign the pledge.

[dmr / tp / wonkette / mediaite / photo: politico.]

Related: Bachmann compared same-sex marriage to Pearl Harbor in 2004.