On Superman, "Wokeness," and Pro-Immigration

Me when the fragile people of pallor are freaking out about the upcoming Superman film being “woke” and having a pro-immigrant stance.

Image description: A montage of images of SpongeBob SquarePants laughing or trying to suppress laughter.

Oh, bless y’alls lil’ papier-mâché hearts.

Superman is a literal extraterrestrial (see: alien) whose parents sought out asylum for their child in a land where they believed he would be safe and cared for, as his homeworld was dying an explosive death due to, ironically, climate change.

Superman was created by two Jewish immigrants as an allegory for the experience of immigrants in the United States and the strength of the human spirit.

Superman has been punchin’ Nazis and sh—ty people since Action Comics #1. Dude literally worked over some slumlords in one of his earliest adventures and spent his first year battling crappy human beings. He’s always been about using his powers and privilege to protect those less fortunate and most vulnerable.

How so many of y’all don’t understand that Superman has always been what y’all describe as woke and pro-immigrant is beyond me.

It’s gotta be a case of widespread kryptonite poisoning.

[Image description: A montage of images of SpongeBob SquarePants laughing or trying to suppress laughter.]

On An Election and A Country's True Identity

I'm not surprised. I'm saddened, but I’m not surprised.

I'm unsurprised that 59% of men of pallor and 52% of women of pallor voted the way they did. I'm sadly not surprised that after everything he said and will do to immigrants when he takes office, he still got 54% of the masculine-identifying and 37% of the feminine-identifying Latine and Hispanic vote.

I'm saddened, but I’m not surprised.

I am disheartened but unsurprised.

I didn’t need a reminder, but for those who did, this election was a firm reminder that the United States is precisely what it has always been: a country steeped in individualism and fear of moving forward, unwilling to be progressive and care for all its citizens, and legitimately uninterested in trying to be the country it likes to claim it is.

He won this election, and it wasn't even close in the popular or electoral vote. A party with a platform of hate, oppression, and regression will be in complete control of the Government come January 2025, and it wasn't even a fight.

And I know so many of y'all voted for this man and this party while playin’ in the faces of the people in your life who you know their policies and governance will do extreme harm to. Most of y'all are quick to bust out a Black Lives Matter sign or bring up trans and reproductive rights just to have a smoke screen to vote against everyone’s best interests.

I loathe that most of y'all won’t own your hatred and fear of losing what you think is exclusively yours - rights, privileges, and safety from tyranny.

I loathe that most of y'all won’t own who you are in front of those your choices impact.

I loathe that most of y’all will be shocked when the people you elected do the exact things you hired them to do and you find yourself and your families adversely impacted and in physical, mental, emotional, and economic distress.

But I’m not surprised.

You're Americans! That's what Americans do, right?

I'm saddened. I'm disheartened. I'm not surprised, though.

This is the American way, y'all.

Note: This poll data is from a subsection of the voter base from 10 states.

On Write-Ups, "Performance Improvement Plans," "Managers," and "Leaders"

Write-ups and "performance improvement plans" exist because most "managers" don't know how to have adult, human, centered conversations with their team members to address issues in real-time and view being vulnerable and connected to their team members and colleagues as weaknesses.

Most write-ups and "performance improvement plans" address things that should've been, and still could be, addressed in a one-on-one, actively engaged conversation and regularly scheduled 1:1s.

If most "managers" and "leaders" used write-ups and "performance improvement plans" as human-centered support tools after exhausting all means of straightforward communication instead of weapons to force compliance, we'd be having different conversations about work.

If most "managers" and "leaders" used write-ups and "performance improvement plans" as a means to remove toxic, oppressive, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, ableist people from the workplace, we'd be having VERY different conversations about work.

Don't @ me. Tell me when I'm tellin' lies.

On Toby, Death, Legacy, and Rewrites

TW: mentions of racism, homophobia, and xenophobia.

So, I posted about Toby Keith on one of my other social media platforms, and whew! Some folx (read: people of pallor) weren't too keen on it. One person (read: cishet man of pallor) went as far as posting, "Way to kick a man when he's down."

I get it. He died. He likely died a painful death. And that sucks. I'm sure his family is grieving. One part of my humanity feels for them (I'm not a heartless monster). Maybe talking about his "accomplishments" (read: being a hateful person with a public platform) when he's barely been gone a week is cold. Some might say that's ice cold. Frigid. Mortal Kombat Sub Zero-level frosty. But you know what?

There's a lot I will never be sure of in this life- life is fickle like that. But one thing I can be sure of is that when I die, there won't be a ticker-tape parade of happiness that I'm no longer here or a notion that the world will be a little safer without me in it.

Think about it: if your death is a cause for celebration for any marginalized, invisible, and unserved community targeted by hate, you're likely on the wrong side of, well, everything. History, decency, everything.

Collectively, we must quit looking at a person's life's work to cherry-pick the things that work for whatever narrative works with our worldviews - views often obscured through generations of hate and toxic norms. I know people of pallor and societal culture are usually keen on re-writing and re-crafting history and "looking at the positives." But when a person's life's work is aimed at harming others, and their work becomes anthems for hate, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia? Help me see how the positives outweigh the negatives enough to disregard harm.

No one is perfect. We all have flaws. But when the things people defend as your "flaws" are evidence that you're a deplorable human being who used their public platform to traffic in pain, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia, maybe the people you've targeted with said public platform ain't gonna feel so bad when your red Solo cup tips over and spills everywhere for the final time.

Just sayin'.

[Image description: An image of a gathering of Black men. Most are staring into the distance, witnessing something messed up. The Black man in the foreground is holding a Solo cup, looking toward the viewer with a "damn" expression on their face. The man walks away from the scene shaking his head and muttering, “Damn.”]

[Image description: An image of a gathering of Black men. Most are staring into the distance, witnessing something messed up. The Black man in the foreground is holding a Solo cup, looking toward the viewer with a "damn" expression on their face. The man walks away from the scene shaking his head and muttering, “Damn.”]

On Wedding Websites and Rulings of Hate

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lorie Smith, a "Christian" graphic designer who wanted the right to discriminate against same-sex couples seeking her services. This ruling went in her favor despite a Colorado law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender, and other protected characteristics. Smith's argument? That the Colorado law violated her free speech rights.

The conservative U.S. Supreme Court agreed with her.

How did this law violate her "freedom of speech?" Your guess is as good as mine, seeing how no one was twisting her arm to force her to take jobs or be hateful.

Lorie's raggedy ass could've politely declined the request, stating she was busy or unavailable, but she didn't. I'm not saying this move is the right or best way to handle things because it would still be a hateful move, but it wouldn't be as confrontational and escalated as this situation became. Do you know how many white people I've encountered who dislike me and my people but decide their vitriol for me isn't worth escalating, so they passively opt out of things? Way more than you'd think. I know members of LGBTQIA+ communities face similar situations. The couple who sought out Lorie's services could've moved on, likely knowing that there was an underlying current of hate to their request being declined but maybe not feeling like this battle was worth escalating (sadly, many of us have to pick and choose which battles to fight and when).

Lorie didn't have to make it an openly hateful thing with these potential clients, but she did. Lorie didn't have to be aggressively homophobic but chose to be. But Lorie was worried about her "freedom of speech" being taken from her. Real talk?

Lorie wasn't worried about her freedom of speech. Lorie was worried about decency infringing on what she believes is her freedom to hate others "in the name of the Lord."

And now every hateful, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, racist, bigoted, faux Christian business owner in the United States will refuse to serve countless communities because the U.S. Supreme Court has declared they have the right to do so.

You have the right to have your beliefs until your beliefs are constantly wielded as clubs of hatred, bigotry, and white supremacy that harm or murder others. Then they aren't beliefs anymore. They're hate crimes.

The U.S. Supreme Court thinks otherwise.