Monday, March 25, 2024

Nickelodeon's Schneider Problem

(Warning: The following discusses unsettling content. Please read at your own risk.)


I like feet. In particular, I like women’s feet. But I try not being creepy about it, especially considering how many people have behaved themselves. I also set boundaries around my interest in them. I mention this because what I’m about to discuss is painful as a childhood sexual assault survivor.

I’m sure some of you are aware of the Dan Schneider documentary on Max. Being Canadian, I have no access to it, as we don’t get Max. However, the documentary, Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV, exposes the relationship many former Nickelodeon stars allegedly had with Schneider growing up in television. None of this is “new”, Schneider’s weirdness was known for years, but the extent that he ruined people’s lives hasn’t been fully-documented before. And given the responses many of these former stars have shared, it’s worth getting their perspective.

I wasn’t big on live-action Nickelodeon as a kid. I preferred their animation, as it had more consistency in quality. I did occasionally watch All That! and The Amanda Show, however. They were weird and inconsistent, but they provided laughs. Yet even with the red flags, (the “show within a show”, Moody’s Point, had a subplot about the protagonist’s father’s toe), I was oblivious to what Amanda Bynes and her cast-mates were experiencing under Schneider.

Schneider’s foot fetishism has been an open secret for as long as he’s been with Nickelodeon. The company’s logo was a footprint! He’s also referenced it on social media frequently, such that people are well aware of it. Yet while that’s cause for concern, him taking advantage of child stars is the worst part. It’s no shock that Hollywood has consent issues, but pedophilia’s not something you’d want for developing minds.

To give a sense of how bad this was, Schneider had his female stars engage in weird antics with their feet. On iCarly, one of Nickelodeon’s most successful live-action sitcoms, actresses Miranda Cosgrove and Jeanette McCurdy frequently showed their bare feet, whether via “toe puppets” or biting feet. The situation was so bad that the iCarly revival had McCurdy absent despite being a big part of the original production. And given her memoir, that shouldn’t surprise anyone.

But it gets worse! In the show Victorious, not only were the leads dressed too maturely for their age, but Schneider’s foot fetishism was present in weird ways. In one instance, Ariana Grande shoved her foot in her mouth on camera. In another instance, Victoria Justice removed her boots and socks and shot a bow and arrow with her bare feet. Both instances would net views on sites like OnlyFans, but this was a sitcom. And these were teenagers. Never mind that the cast was reportedly uncomfortable with these “shenanigans”, it also didn’t help the show’s writing anyway.

And it gets worse still! If everything I’ve mentioned has made you uneasy, remember that it’s only a fraction of what transpired behind closed doors. Not only was Schneider making his stars behave provocatively on screen, he was also a nightmare to deal with. He’d routinely make inappropriate advances on his actresses, and at times he’d engage in sexual acts with them. I won’t go into detail, as it classifies as rape, but it begs the question: why was Dan Schneider fixated on exploiting these actresses when the internet exists? Google’s search engine doesn’t judge people for their kinks…

I wish I could say that it was only teenage girls that felt uncomfortable, but it wasn’t. Drake Bell-yes, that Drake Bell-has recently stated that he was sexually assaulted by his agent while under Schneider’s regime. It may not excuse his later allegations, but it puts them in context; after all, why not emulate the behaviour you saw firsthand? Hurt people hurt people.

Everything I’ve mentioned, though a fraction of what went on at Nickelodeon, puts into perspective how the network operated. And it wasn’t pretty. Because while this wasn’t known to the public for the longest time, it wasn’t a secret to those in the industry. Like Harvey Weinstein, I’m sure there were whistle blowers for years prior to this documentary. They simply weren’t listened to, or were blackballed.

No one’s saying you can’t work with or talk to children. Having relatives under the age of 10, I assure you they sometimes have unfiltered wisdom untainted by the harshness of life. Besides, they’re people! And like adults, kids are worthy of validation! Yet that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be respected, because they should. Especially since they can’t consent to sexual behaviour!

Additionally, I won’t stop you from having a foot fetish. So long as you’re not creepy about it, you do you. It’s a part of the body that doesn’t get enough respect anyway. But while what you do with your body is your business, what you do with someone else’s is a whole other beast. It requires consent, contrary to what pornography might led you to believe.

As for the former stars of Nickelodeon? While some of them might’ve not ended up being great people, I can’t help but feel bad for the abuses they went through. Because it clearly scarred them enough to share their stories. And while I’m glad Schneider’s out of the picture, he alone wasn’t the issue. If Drake Bell’s situation is indication, Schneider wasn’t the only bad egg.

It could be that I’m projecting. I’m a survivor of childhood sexual assault, something I’ve been open about before. At the same time, am I really projecting? The stories shared on Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV are upsetting, and Schneider ruined people’s lives by having his weirdness unchecked. If that’s me “projecting”, then I should do it more often.

This is an example of why Hollywood needs to change. I know the industry recently resolved two strikes, but job stability and AI safeguards don’t override the toxic and coercive work environment that actors, most of them women, have endured. That needs remedying, and quickly. Otherwise, stories like Dan Schneider and Nickelodeon will persist. And do we want that?

Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Mario's Devious Trap

Ever have a classic video game that you adore, yet has a flaw preventing you from beating it? I’m sure many people do. Mine’s Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. I love it to bits, but it has a feature preventing me from playing it for long. But before I explain why that is, I’ll mention everything I like about it first:


For starters, there’s the visual aesthetic. Looking at it now in 2024, it’s easy to see the simplicity. But for a Game Boy game in 1992, it was huge to have a Mario title as detailed as this one! Considering its direct predecessor was blocky, resembling an early NES title, to look like a scaled-down version of Super Mario World is great. It makes you appreciate how the handheld, restricted by portability and battery, could render everything. Respect for that alone.

I like how the game makes use of its sprites. It only introduces one new power-up, the Carrot, but you know Mario’s using it by sprouting rabbit ears and hovering. Even the other power-ups have signifiers to let you know Mario’s using them, including transitionary frames for Mario transforming or regressing from a power-up. It’s a neat workaround for a handheld lacking colour, and I wish more Mario games had utilized this. It’s also really charming to see Mario’s transition states.

Another element in this game’s favour is the overhaul of standard mechanics we’ve come to expect from other entries. Instead of using a flag as a checkpoint, Mario rings a bell. Coins, once the currency for extra lives, instead work as money that can be used at the in-game bank. And while I’m not sure what it does, the game has a Goomba counter for enemies you’ve killed. For someone with OCD, this is neat to track.

The game has a pretty sophisticated over-world. Not only is each area rendered with a unique cutscene upon entry, which was a revolutionary for a Game Boy game in 1992, it’s also non-linear. You can traverse the 6 Zones out of order, making for a game of memorization of what you’ve completed. Even the different Zones are have unique designs and layouts, with plenty going on. I admire the attention to detail.

I can’t forget the musical motif. Not only is it memorable, it’s really catchy despite being repetitive. It’s upbeat and matches the energy of the game, an added plus given the core objective’s to collect 6 golden coins and reclaim your castle from Wario. It also subvert my personal disdain for a motif being the majority of the in-level music by not only varying it, but also being that catchy. If you don’t believe me, have a listen.

Finally, I like how fun it is. Whether it’s travelling through pipes without loading screens, or appreciating each world’s unique level design, it’s an enjoyable experience all-around. It’s enough to make me forget, however briefly, about its most-glaring flaw, one that sours the experience. Speaking of, I should probably discuss it now. You ready?

Getting a Game Over wipes your progress.

I’m serious. Imagine you’ve gotten really far, only to lose to a boss too many times and get a Game Over. While most games would continue where you left off, Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins not only wipes your collected coins, it makes you replay the levels you’ve beaten. I’m sure this isn’t an issue for most people, the game’s not terribly difficult, but considering that I struggle with even easy video games, losing what I’ve acquired prior because of a mistake is my own worst nightmare. It’s the game knowing I’m bad at it, then punishing me for it. Given that I’m prone to repeating the same mistakes over and over, that’s adding insult to injury. I barely made it out of __ Zone without a Game Over, and this game expects me to relive that?!

You know what doesn’t help? It has a save feature, but it’s only in the area you’re currently playing. That’s right, you have a game on the Game Boy with a conditional save state! If that’s not enough to send someone into an instant rage, then I question their patience. Because it actively infuriates me whenever I get a Game Over, which happens a lot!

Let’s use the following comparison: say you’re working on an assignment for someone. You pour your heart into it, and you write something respectable. Now, say you hand it in to said person, and, after looking it over, said person throws it into the fireplace and wipes your hard-drive clear of everything but the title. They then demand you write it again. How would you feel?

If you said “infuriated”, congrats: you know how getting a Game Over in Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins makes me feel. I know the Switch port on NSO has a rewind feature, but guess what? That only half-solves the problem. It might create a backup save, but it doesn’t stop me from getting a Game Over. Besides, I shouldn’t need to rely on a cheat to remedy a 32 year-old game’s glaring flaw. This should’ve already been avoidable in 1992!

Where was I? Oh yeah, ever have a classic video game that-I’m kidding, I’m not writing all of that again. But it speaks to how two-minded I am about this game, especially since everything else is amazing: it controls well. It plays well. It’s fun. It has catchy music. It’s impressive to look at. Still, none of that matters if, at the end of the day, I can’t actually beat it.

Actually, here’s a compromise: if the game ever gets a remake, it can keep every game mechanic except that one. Nintendo can even put in a harder mode, one more like the original! But if it dares releasing it without a proper save mechanic, then I’m not touching it with a 10-foot pole. I have enough trouble with the original as is!

While I love Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, I don’t love that it fails to impress in a key area. Call it lame to shed light on that, but I don’t care. If a game from 1992, on a system that has the capabilities, refuses to properly save my progress when I get a Game Over, guess what? That’s bad game design. And it ruins the experience in my mind. You can disagree all you want, but I dare you to explain why I’m wrong. Try!

Tuesday, March 12, 2024

RIP Akira Toriyama

On March 1st, 2024, legendary Manga artist Akira Toriyama passed away.


I was debating whether or not to write something. Despite growing up on a healthy diet of Dragon Ball Z, I have no attachment to the franchise now. The show was overlong, poorly-paced and repetitive. And that’s only its most famous entry! However, it’d be a disservice to Toriyama’s legacy to end there.

Akira Toriyama, like Osamu Tezuka, was ahead of his time. Coming into Japanese comics around its boom, Toriyama imbued panache in his drawings. I’m not a big fan of Manga Iconography, I think it’s the equivalent of overacting, but Toriyama made it work because his characters were larger than life. This was especially true in making Saiyans human-like superheroes with names based on vegetables. Essentially, he made healthy foods cool.

This panache was prevalent in how Saiyans fought. They could attack in midair, they shouted over-the-top catchphrases, they even could power-up and turn into giant gorillas. Saiyans were powerful and terrifying, yet you couldn’t help loving them. Especially since they had a code of ethics, one they stuck to. Not many villainous races prior were known for that.

That aside, there was something unique about how the shows were structured that made them exciting as a kid. The arcs were long and overdrawn, but they were still entertaining. The pacing of each episode was exaggerated, with several minutes of content stretching to full length, but it was cool. It kept me wanting more, and that was complimented by the narration at the beginning and end of each episode. It made me feel like time hadn’t passed if I consistently watched episodes, yet out of the loop if I missed one or two for whatever reason.

There was also something charming about watching testosterone-laden supermen duking it out. Every punch was cathartic. Every scream echoed through my ears. Even every victory or loss was carefully constructed to feel like a big deal. It might’ve been “mindless junk food”, but I didn’t really care.

Yet stopping there would do Toriyama a disservice. Not only was he responsible for artwork outside of the Dragon Ball franchise, including Chrono Trigger on The SNES/Super Famicom, he also influenced many fans and animators. Even future Shonen like One Piece, Naruto and Bleach owe a debt to what Toriyama began in the 80’s and 90’s. I’d venture that Fullmetal Alchemist, my favourite action anime after Wolf’s Rain, wouldn’t have been as popular without coasting off of Toriyama’s imprint.

Another area that set Toriyama’s Shonen apart from his contemporaries was that, being serialized, the cast of the Dragon Ball franchise was allowed to age. Goku started off as a little boy in Dragon Ball, grew up and fathered two sons in Dragon Ball Z and became a grandfather in Dragon Ball GT. Even with the latter retconned entirely in Dragon Ball Super, that didn’t change. If anything, it reemphasized the importance of not remaining stuck in a time loop, something some contemporary Shonen could learn from. (I’m looking at you, Pokémon!)

Really though, it’s this mark of Toriyama that transcends his most important work’s quality. Was the Dragon Ball series “good”? That remains in the eye of the beholder, but it’s irrelevant. Like it or not, it was the introduction to anime for many people, and it helped pave the way for other shows. Even in North America, where it caught on like it was going out of style, the various dubs and re-dubs made for interesting debates and memes online. Who could forget the infamous, “It’s over 9000!” translation error that became a running joke?

Therein lies the secret. A few years back I wrote an obituary about Isao Takahata. In it, I mentioned that while I wasn’t the biggest fan of his body of work, I nevertheless respected the impact he made. The same can be said of Akira Toriyama, perhaps even more so. Because while I might not currently connect with his work, I recognize it as important. Like Osamu Tezuka, he left an indelible mark on anime and Manga, one that may not be matched in the near future.

Life’s short and challenging, with many talented individuals dying early. Whether it’s Robin Williams, Fred Rogers or Stan Lee, the reality is that celebrities can have an impact on people, sometimes even through cultural osmosis. Akira Toriyama was one such a person, and his loss is felt more in The West than in Japan. That’s the kind of artist he was, irrespective of his work’s quality. It’s a legacy many people worldwide can’t achieve in their dreams, let alone reality!

Here's to you, Toriyama-san! And here’s to the endless inspiration your work has left on thousands of artists. 68 might be “too early”, but never forget the impact you left on so many people. You’ll definitely be missed, even by someone as stingy as myself!

Saturday, March 9, 2024

E for Everyone?

I didn’t think I’d be discussing Princess Peach: Showtime! again so soon. For one, I thought there’d be nothing left to discuss. And two, I’m the wrong demographic to be dissecting its controversies, as I’m an adult male. But that’s precisely why it’s so important to mention the game again. Especially since a demo’s now available on the Nintendo eShop.


I’m not alone in trying it out. The demo has been played by several people, and the consensus is that it’s interesting and unique, but simple and easy. I agree on the former points, but the latter? Not so much. And even so, I don’t see that as a negative.

For those who unaware, I’m not great at video games. I enjoy them, often to my detriment, but I find even the easiest ones difficult. I’ve gotten stuck on almost every game I’ve played, even when the solution was staring me in the face. At times I’ve had to look up some obvious solutions. It’s for that reason I both have a soft spot for simple and easy games, and have disdain for gamers who think modern games are “too easy”.

What little I played of Princess Peach: Showtime reconfirms this. The first stage, involving Swordfighter Peach, I actually died halfway in and had to start over. The second stage, with Patisserie Peach, I not only restarted because I’d soft-locked myself, I also died in the cookie segment and got confused in the cake decorating segment. I enjoyed myself though, because I own my failures! That includes getting stuck and making mistakes in obvious parts of simple games.

I honestly don’t care if this game’s “simple and easy”. Nor should you, really. Because this game’s not only charming, it’s also inventive. It even shakes up the formula for each level to keep from boredom. I say that from only two levels! You have no idea how hard that is to pull off if you’re unfamiliar with Nintendo’s gameplay mechanics.

This also ties into a bigger complaint I see popping up a lot nowadays, as well as how obnoxious it really is: games are “too easy” now. That’s not only an overgeneralization, especially when Dark Souls exists, it also ignores the inverse: many older games are too difficult. I know it’s subjective, and perhaps unfair, but older hardware required the difficulty level to be amped up to compensate for a lack of length. Still, that doesn’t mean some games weren’t brutal anyway. And I’ll use an example:

Remember The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time? It’s a classic for a reason, but The Water Temple’s a nightmare to complete. The core gimmick, raising and lowering the water level to access specific sections, requires tedious pattern memorizations, and this ignores how the bulk of the level’s hidden away. I spent three hours over two days tinkering with the water levels before resorting to a walkthrough and an online speed-run, and even then I struggled. This is supposed to be fun?

I don’t like my video games becoming homework. It’s why I never finished the aforementioned game’s sequel, as well as why I gave up at the final bosses for Donkey Kong Country’s successors. And yet, that’s what many older video games honestly feel like, even classics. It’s one problem to occasionally look up help, but being chained to help? You might as well have someone else play the game.

What little I’ve experienced of Princess Peach: Showtime! doesn’t have that issue. Which makes sense, as the game was developed by the same team as Kirby’s Epic Yarn and Yoshi’s Woolly World. Those weren’t difficult either, and they didn’t need to be. They coasted on simple and easy gameplay, which worked to their advantage. Besides, if you went into a Kirby or a Yoshi game expecting challenge, then you were in the wrong franchise.

To that end, Princess Peach: Showtime! accomplishes what it sets out to do. It’s not the most sophisticated or challenging experience, even on the Switch, but so what? I had fun, and it has the standard level of Nintendo polish. It’s won’t rock your world, but it doesn’t need to. It’s a vehicle for Peach to be a main character, instead of the typical damsel in distress. Isn’t that important too?

As a final note, the game’s target demographic of young children, particularly girls, shouldn’t be understated. Female gamers are prepped at a young age to not be fairly represented, and while that’s changing now, there’s a lot of progress that needs to be made still. A game like Princess Peach: Showtime!, which has Peach in an active role, is a step in the right direction. It also covers many of the areas of interest young girls are into, as well as a few they normally aren’t. And that’s okay.

So yes, male gamers, accept that not every game by Nintendo is for you. Because if a beloved character like Princess Peach can star in a game that doesn’t reduce her to stock emotions, then there’s hope yet for the future of gaming!

Wednesday, March 6, 2024

Leave Chris Alone!

I’m going to be direct upfront: do people not have anything better to do than be angry all the time? Is it not emotionally draining to “in-group/out-group” everything? I’ve seen it so frequently that I’m wondering if people need hobbies. Because attacking someone for not dogpiling on a movie, instead discussing a bigger issue, isn’t that. It’s also unhealthy.


Some context:

I’m a big fan of Bob Chipman, aka Moviebob. His personal politics are…off, but his general thoughts on movies are thought-provoking and understandable. He has the humility to outright acknowledge what he doesn’t know too, which is plenty. And while his older work hasn’t aged well, that’s because he realized later in life that he needed to stop being nasty. It’s reflected even as recently as 5 years ago.

Bob recently put out a Big Picture discussing the backlash YouTube reviewer Chris Stuckmann received for refusing to review Madame Web. I don’t blame him, as it doesn’t seem worth anyone’s time. But while I love Stuckmann’s work, even being Subscribed to him, I figured that Bob was being nice. After all, Bob loves defending the underdog, so why not Chris? That was the mindset I initially had, and I wasn’t sure what the hubbub was about.

Then I watched Chris’s video. Suddenly, I had more questions than answers. Questions like “Why were people so angry?”, or “What about Chris’s stance was offensive?”. What he said was sensible, as he not only defended the director, he shifted the blame to Sony’s never-ending quest for quick money. This was worth getting mad over? This 16-minute video?

I’m not against a good, old-fashioned rant. When done well, it can actually be cathartic. It also can drive engagement in ways praise often doesn’t give. That’s why people opt for rants so frequently, not helped by the algorithms on different platforms prioritizing negativity. But while therapeutic, rants can reinforce a hateful feedback loop long-term. It’s what got me to leave Twitter after October 7th.

I didn’t always think this way. Before joining Twitter in 2011, I was an edgy Libertarian who liked mouthing off. Twitter morphed me into someone who was more mindful, but it also radicalized me in the opposite direction. Instead of mouthing off Libertarianism, I was mouthing off Social-Progressivism. But I was still mouthing off nonsense. And it was getting me into trouble.

Now that I’m nearing my mid-30’s, and re-evaluating my life choices, I’m left wondering if it was worth it. After all, mouthing off nonsense did no favours, and I wasn’t maintaining healthy boundaries. So I stopped. And it’s made me feel better. Why’s that a problem for people?

It's not like I won’t discuss issues in film and video games. I do it constantly! But while that might be the focus of The Whitly-Verse, it’s on my terms. I’m not being paid to write anything here. I don’t get advertising revenue, and I don’t have a Patreon page. Everything on this site, including the odd collaboration with friends? It's all done for the love of the craft. Because I’ve worked under others, and I’d rather not return to that!

One of the results of breaking free from that system is seeing how toxic it can be. It reflects in how current events are discussed, and it prevents nuance or mature conversation from occurring. I know Twitter’s a toxic cesspool of partisanship, but so is YouTube. And TikTok. And Facebook. And Instagram. And-you get the picture.

All of this is to say that if Chris Stuckmann refuses to discuss Madame Web, that’s his prerogative. Remember, Chris is a moviemaker now. He knows how hard it is to work on a film in this day and age, and he wants to uplift his fellow artists. That’s admirable, and more internet “criticism” should do that. That’s why I’ve fallen out of love with Jeremy Jahns and Captain Logan, even if I’m still Subscribed to both.

Seeing how people have reacted to Chris’s decision is perplexing and upsetting. Why does it matter if a well-respected personality refuses to add to the hate? Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic exist, go there! Don’t redirect your disappointment at someone who doesn’t want to play the game! Be adults!

I’ve even become burnt out on excessive negativity! My most-popular piece, after 8 years, is a rant about a poorly thought-out fan-ship. I don’t regret writing it, but I’d prefer my in-depth piece on The Omer be #1. It’s not negative, and I poured my heart out, so why not? What would people have to lose?

I guess a lack of negativity’s the issue, which leads me back, once again, to Chris Stuckmann and Moviebob. If you want to pile on Madame Web, go right ahead. The internet has no shortage of people interested in that. But if someone else doesn’t want to, that’s their prerogative. And if that offends you? Then that’s your problem. Life’s exhausting enough without partisan anger fuelling the fire. It’s not worth it, and-algorithm be damned-it’s high time we moved on to something more important.

Wednesday, February 28, 2024

Understanding Israeli-Palestinian Discourse

No matter how hard I steer clear of it, Israel-Palestine always resurfaces.


Take recently, when Cristina Vee got dragged into this. Vee’s a voice actress who’s worked on the dubs of Mahou Shoujo Puella Magi Madoka Magica and the redo of Sailor Moon. She’s really talented, and she has many fans. She’s also half-Lebanese and half-Latino, making her identity unique. That she has a beautiful singing voice is also a plus, but that’s not relevant. Moving on.

Ever since October 7th, 2023, when Hamas attacked two kibbutzim in Israel, the ensuing conflict has resulted in polarization and toxicity. I’ve already shared my thoughts twice, three times if you include my exit letter from Twitter, but the situation hasn’t calmed down. If anything, it’s gotten worse! And nowhere is this more-apparent than in the armchair politics Lynda Carter warned everyone about. It’s gotten to the point where internet figures have made it into political football, which brings me back to Vee.

Cristina Vee recently wound up on a list of VAs who “openly support Israel” as a means of boycotting them. Ignoring how petty this was, Vee’s profile became public to accounts who harassed and threatened her. She even deactivated her Twitter account for her own safety. In other words, it got nasty. The lows we sink to…

This situation reeks of shamelessness. For one, no one knew what Vee’s personal politics were, so this was a hit job. And two, even if she was pro-Israel, so what? Not only is that common in the West, but it doesn’t justify a harassment and doxing campaign! Vee wasn’t inciting anyone! And she relies on Twitter for her PR. Why would you rob that based on a hunch?

I’d end here, but it was quickly revealed that Vee had been “wrongly targeted”. Instead of rectifying this, the account responsible made a poor public apology. When that didn’t work, they deactivated. So great, first a libellous rumour spread, and then the originator of it went AWOL. I’d be annoyed if I weren’t impressed by the brazenness.

Okay, a VA is attacked for something that was revealed to be untrue, and the culprit disappears. Surely this can’t get any dumber, right? Wrong. It turns out they had a friend that began white knighting their reputation, saying they were “sensitive” and “suicidal” and this was a “simple mistake”. I call bullocks. Knocking over a mug placed at the edge of a table and breaking it is a “simple mistake”. This isn’t that.

Of course, it wasn’t enough to reverse the damage. Not only was a VA smeared over a lie, but the liar nuked their credibility. And then a third party shot their own respectability in the foot for coming to the liar’s defence. Are we sure we’re not in middle school here? Because this is something pre-teens would do.

If it sounds like I’m being harsh, it’s only because Vee has grounds for a defamation lawsuit. I’m not saying this because I’m a fan of hers, I’m saying it because this is an example of how toxic the internet can be. Ignoring who started this war, thousands of innocent civilians on both sides, Israeli and Palestinian, have been murdered and traumatized. On the Israeli side, health officials are preparing for potential pregnancies that resulted from rape on October 7th. And on the Palestinian side, think of how long it’ll take to rebuild The Gaza Strip.

The harshness of this war being offset by petty politics, therefore, is the biggest insult to injury. It also underscores how it’s broken the sensibilities of so many, leading to really disgusting fights and verbal sparring. To top it off, it’s ruined careers because people can’t mind their own business. It’s bad enough that Antisemitism and Islamophobia have skyrocketed since October 7th without people starting needless fires. That’s not productive, trust me.

Above all, this is a microcosm of how October 7th has given a machine gun worth of hate-ammo to some awful voices, both online and offline. There are people I once regarded as friends that I can no longer have good-faith conversations with because they refuse to acknowledge the pain that’s stemmed from this war. It hurts. It hurts, and what happened to Vee is why it hurts. Even ignoring that, it sidesteps the fact that Israelis and Palestinians aren’t going to magically disappear, so they need to learn to live side-by-side.

As for Cristina Vee? I’m hoping she reactivates her account, even if she has a presence on other platforms. Ignoring my many issues with Twitter, that site was part of her branding, and now it’s gone. And it’s gone for a dumb reason. That saddens me, and it should sadden everyone else. Because she deserved more.

That’s not what I can say of the person who ruined her reputation, someone I won’t name because I don’t want to add to this. However, if they really are suicidal and sensitive, then I have words of friendly advice: you want to not get into trouble? Don’t poke your nose where it doesn’t belong. I’m a sensitive person too, but this is low. And I’ve made some big mistakes online! It’s not worth making your life miserable, and I’m embarrassed that you dragged an innocent woman’s reputation through the mud. Do better.

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Discussing Political Ableism

Ableism’s an unusual kind of bigotry. It’s prevalent in how we communicate, and it shapes how we live our lives. The biggest offenders on a macrocosmic scale are politicians, though. The attitudes they have inspire others to behave a certain way, including ableism. However, while politicians can be ableist, they’re still prone to the same issues as everyone else. So while it’s important to keep them accountable, that accountability should be sculpted carefully. Because if we can’t criticize politicians without being ableist, then what’s the point?

I should note that I have no love for politicians myself, but let’s dive in anyway:


The biggest target of ableism right now, in my mind, is Joe Biden. Biden, the oldest president in history, has been the subject of scrutiny over his mental acuity. “Biden’s in cognitive decline!”, I hear. “He has a poor working memory!” And while it might seem like that, since he often appears that way in public briefings, that there’s no official documentation to back this up is a red flag. Especially given what he's disclosed before.

Biden has a speech impediment. In particular, he has a stutter, one that causes him to repeat words, make gaffes and lose his train of thought. I know we think of stutters as repeating syllables constantly, but it’s more varied than that. I’m no expert, but considering that I stumble on my words when I’m nervous, that the 46th POTUS is open about stuttering should be inspiring. It’s not every day that someone with a stutter becomes the leader of a global superpower, right?

Biden’s issues with public speaking, aside from being something many people struggle with, are usually offset by one-on-ones. He can hold himself there, as shown through his Town Hall leading up to the 2020 elections. But outside of that, Biden’s gaffes have no negative impact on his base. If anything, people find them endearing! Especially since he's been in the political eye for over 50 years! If people aren’t used to this by now, then that’s on them!

I’m not saying you can’t criticize or mock Biden. Not only is he notorious for fabricating stories, he also has a history of bad policies and racist behaviour. The number of horrible laws he’s been the author of is only outmatched by cozying up to awful individuals since the 1970’s. Biden has plenty to be critical of as a person, so focusing on his stutter, especially given his age, is really disturbing. At this point, he’ll probably retire from a physical ailment and not a cognitive one.


So that I’m not accused of playing partisan politics, I’ll mention Lindsey Graham next. In the lead-up to his recent re-election, Graham debated his Democratic opponent Jaime Harrison. It wasn’t as high-profile as the presidential election, but it gained notoriety for how Graham was criticized. He was chastised for swaying back and forth and fidgeting, a sign of “insecurity”. Jaime Harrison, on the other hand, was poised and confident-looking.

Far be me to cozy up to Donald Trump’s lapdog, especially given his shortcomings, but criticizing Graham for swaying rubs me the wrong way. We don’t know why he swayed, nor should we surmise. But even if it was “distracting”, so what? Ever heard of stimming? Autistic people stim constantly when they speak, and sometimes when they don’t. I do it all the time, something made worse by my Tourette’s Syndrome. Nervous body movements happen to many people, but some are better at hiding them.

I wouldn’t be uncomfortable if Donald Trump hadn’t used a similar tactic on a Pulitzer-winning journalist with a disability in 2015. If it was unacceptable then, then it shouldn’t be acceptable now. Never mind that Harrison was also moving a lot, even if it wasn’t obvious. Sadly, ableism’s so ingrained in society that we engage in it to denigrate people. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is.

As with Biden, Graham has a lot to answer for. Key among this is his homophobia, made worse by his closeted behaviour. But criticizing him for stimming is laziness. It also doesn’t account for why he stims. And I don’t think it’s up to the masses to assume anything, either. Do better.


I’ll end with one more American politician, and I apologize for not expanding my scope: John Fetterman. The youngest example here, Fetterman won his senator race against Doctor Oz. And he did this despite suffering from a stroke. Though making a miraculous recovery in time for his nomination, Fetterman’s incident has been a point of criticism for many. He’s been accused of suffering brain damage, such that it’s “warped his speech”. Far be it from me to come back to politics following a stroke, but really? That’s what we’re going after?

I wouldn’t even be calling this out if it weren’t brought up frequently. So Fetterman had a stroke? So what?! People have strokes for different reasons, and there’s a spectrum. There’s also a spectrum to recovery, something more people would understand if they knew how strokes worked.

It’s disingenuous to bring this up because you don’t like Fetterman. I get not being fond of his policies, but criticizing him over a stroke? And one he recovered from? Do people have nothing better to do than attack a man over a medical crisis before he was voted in? Surely there aren’t more pressing concerns?

Like Biden and Graham, Fetterman’s no saint. He’s been around long enough that there’s room to criticize him, specifically over fracking. But speaking as the son of someone who almost died from a heart attack, I’ve seen people make full recoveries from life-threatening illnesses. Fetterman’s but one example. If anything, his rebound should be a testament to how modern medicine’s essential! But I guess that’s too difficult for some of us to comprehend. Oh well!

In the end, while politicians aren’t saints, we shouldn’t call them out for something they can’t control. Because then it’s bigotry. And bigotry isn’t something you want to be remembered for!

Popular Posts (Monthly)

Popular Posts (General)