Author: Goldpanner

superheroesincolor:

Never Alone (Kisima Ingitchuna)

“Never Alone (Kisima Ingitchuna) is the first game developed in collaboration with the Iñupiat, an Alaska Native people. Nearly 40 Alaska Native elders, storytellers and community members contributed to the development of the game. Play as a young Iñupiat girl and an arctic fox as they set out to find the source of the eternal blizzard which threatens the survival of everything they have ever known. 

In this atmospheric puzzle platformer, you will explore awe-inspiring environments, perform heroic deeds, and meet legendary characters from Iñupiaq stories — all narrated by a master storyteller in the spoken Iñupiaq language. 

Unlock fascinating video insights — Elders, storytellers, and other members of the Alaska Native community share stories and wisdom about their culture, values and the amazing Arctic world encountered by players in over 30 minutes of interviews.”

neveralonegame.com / Steam Store / facebook

Keep reading about the game: 

Updating Centuries-Old Folklore With Puzzles and Power-Ups

// Upon request by olivia-wetzel  

Not really Comic book stuff per se but it touches the cultural diversity aspect in an important way. – Admin // 

prokopetz:

I think my biggest “huh” moment with respect to gender roles is when it was pointed out to me that your typical “geek” is just as hypermasculine as your typical “jock” when you look at it from the right angle.

As male geeks, a great deal of our identity is built on the notion that male geeks are, in some sense, gender-nonconformant, insofar as we’re unwilling or unable to live up to certain physical ideals about what a man “should” be. Indeed, many of us take pride in how putatively unmanly we are.

Viewed from an historical perspective, however, the virtues of the ideal geek are essentially those of the ideal aristocrat: a cultured polymath with expertise in a vast array of subjects; rarefied or eccentric taste in food, clothing, music, etc.; identity politics that revolve around one’s hobbies or pastimes; open disdain for physical labour and those who perform it; a sense of natural entitlement to positions of authority (“you should be flipping my burgers!”); and so forth.

And the thing about that aristocratic ideal? It’s intensely masculine. It may seem more welcoming to women on the surface, but – as recent events will readily illustrate – this is a facade: we pretend to be egalitarian because it suits our refined self-image, but that affectation falls away in a heartbeat when challenged.

Basically, the whole “geeks versus jocks” thing that gets drilled into us by media and the educational system isn’t about degrees of masculinity at all. It’s just two different flavours of the same toxic bullshit: the ideal geek is the alpha-male-as-philosopher-king, as opposed to the ideal jock’s alpha-male-as-warrior-king. It’s still a big dick-measuring contest – we’re just using different rulers.

genderpunks:

manzanas-amargas:

Schrödinger opens the box and nothing changes.

The cat lacks vital signs (no heartbeat, no breathing, no brain function): the cat is dead.

The cat exhibits continued animation (blinking, walking, nudging his hand with its little head): the cat is alive.

Schrödinger is afraid.

That has not changed, either.

#oh this is perfect#it was schrödinger’s mocking pseudo-thought experiment#meant to puncture & deny all the idiot scientists who believed a cat could be simultaneously alive & dead#because it was demanded by their model of quantum mechanics#but think of schrödinger the victim of his own theoretical fancy#experiencing all those quantum divergences at once#surrounded by dead-alive people#actual and aborted worlds flickering in and out of view like faulty neon lights#[war revolution apocalypse; real and not real]#stumbling when the ground under his feet becomes pocked scorched earth; then pavement again#and the vision of a cat pursuing him through the dark with hateful eyes [now yellow; now hollow] that say#did you kill me schrödinger#did you kill me (x)

spritzeal:

commiekinkshamer:

basically emotional manipulation and guilt tripping as social justice praxis is pointless and not sustainable imo. it doesn’t promote real growth or solidarity if the entire basis of your activism is stemming from guilt or fear 

#like it just ends with kids reblogging things they dont really understand #and not daring to ask for further information references or even just it in easier to digest terms #so then you get loads of well intentioned and paranoid kids shouting at each other using buzzwords they dont really get #while abusive people can easily slip in and co-opt the system for their own ends #slams fist on table #transparency and forgiveness in sj circles#slams fists over and over

smalllindsay:

New Baman Piderman Mini-sode: Holiday Winter Friends Special!

No matter what, when, and with whom you celebrate, take a little time out of your day to be grateful for all the important friends, family, and sentient tubas’ in your life. ….wait what. Where am I.

Special thanks to Mari Kidder for helping with coloring! Look out for a full length episode coming close on this one’s heels. This mini-sode is an extra, so it doesn’t count as one of the ten KS shorts! It’s a Happy Winter Friends gift from us to you, our bestest internet buddies.

With love,

L+A

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/)

the-exercist:

mylittlesuperwholock40k:

What’s the difference here?

The first woman is a real human being. She controls her own body and has her own personality. She has control over her own actions and can make autonomous decisions in her life. She also has to directly deal with the people around her and the bigotry, stereotyping and harassment that she is exposed to. She is real, she has emotions, she has thoughts, and she has rights. 

The second woman is fictional. She was created by other people who exert full control over her body, appearance and actions. Her sole purpose is to be literally bought and sold for the entertainment of an audience. She cannot make her own decisions, she cannot control her own body and she is not real. She is not responsible for her behavior or appearance: She is the product of the environment that she was created in. 

The first woman, by virtue of being a human being who identifies with the feminist movement and acts in accordance to those beliefs, is therefore a feminist. She is actively participating in feminism and is choosing to dress herself in a manner of protest that best demonstrates that she alone controls her body, and that no others have a right to access her body without her consent. She is a multi-faceted person who has agency, and part of that agency includes the ability to look sexy while refusing to consent to her own dehumanization. Her actions are not only one small part of what makes her a person, but she is also participating within a cultural trend of protesting rape culture. 

The second woman, because she is not autonomous and was designed by a series of outsiders, is sexist because she is the passive product of sexist content creators. She exists as an ornament. Her clothes were chosen as fan service so that she can be sexually available and gratifying at all times, most likely for straight male gamers. Her erotic appearance has little functional purpose other than to please an audience. And since she exists within an industry that is consistently criticized for ostracizing female participants and creating a large gap between the depictions of male and female characters, her appearance is simply one detail within a much larger array of sexist problems. 

Get it?