Poeaxtry's Poetry Prism

Spell. Stone. & Sparks that Ignite Change

Category: Blackout

  • Dave Chappelle’s Transphobia a Critical Examination

    Dave Chappelle’s Transphobia a Critical Examination

    Dave Chappelle, is a renowned comedian. He is known for his sharp wit and controversial humor. This has been cause for him facing significant backlash for his repeated transphobic remarks in recent years. Here I will delve into specific instances where Chappelle’s comments have been deemed harmful to the transgender community, supported by facts and reactions from various organizations and individuals.

    “The Closer” (2021) – A Stand-Up Special Under Fire

    In his 2021 Netflix special, The Closer, Chappelle made several statements that many perceived as transphobic. Notably, he declared himself “Team TERF” (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist), aligning himself with author J.K. Rowling, who has been criticized for her anti-transgender views. Chappelle’s comment, “They canceled J.K. Rowling… my God. Effectually she said gender was fact, the trans community got mad as shit, they started calling her a TERF … I’m team TERF,” drew immediate criticism from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and allies. GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign condemned the special, and Jaclyn Moore, a transgender writer and showrunner for Netflix series Dear White People and Queer as Folk, announced she would no longer work with the company. 

    “The Dreamer” (2023) – Continued Transphobic Content:

    Chappelle’s 2023 Netflix special, The Dreamer , further perpetuated transphobic narratives. The special included extended segments mocking transgender individuals, with some jokes lasting up to 12 minutes. Critics argued that these remarks continued Chappelle’s pattern of “punching down” on marginalized communities, particularly transgender people. The Conversation described Chappelle as an “egalitarian bully” who continues to target the transgender community. 

    Public Defenses of Transphobic Content:

    In response to the backlash from The Closer, Chappelle addressed the controversy by appearing to blame the transgender community. He suggested that their reactions were the cause of the ongoing discussions about his remarks, rather than acknowledging the potential harm caused by his words. 

    Chappelle’s comments have not gone unnoticed within the entertainment industry. Following the release of The Closer, several Netflix employees, including transgender individuals, organized a walkout to protest the company’s decision to continue streaming the special. They demanded that Netflix take a stronger stance against content that perpetuates transphobia. 

    Additionally, comedian Michelle Buteau criticized Chappelle’s recurring anti-transgender jokes, labeling them as “dangerous” and emphasizing the importance of comedy that does not harm specific communities. 

    Dave Chappelle’s repeated transphobic remarks, particularly in his Netflix specials The Closer and The Dreamer, have sparked widespread criticism from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, fellow comedians, and industry professionals. These instances highlight the ongoing challenges faced by the transgender community in combating harmful stereotypes and the responsibility of public figures to be mindful of the impact their words can have on marginalized groups.

    Links

    Portfolio

    Poems

  • Jordan Peterson’s Anti-Trans Rhetoric

    Jordan Peterson’s Anti-Trans Rhetoric

    The Pattern of Harmful Misinformation:

    Jordan Peterson has long presented himself as a defender of free speech, but when it comes to trans rights his rhetoric crosses into documented misinformation and targeted harassment. This is not about debating his philosophy or nitpicking semantics. This is about two verifiable cases where Peterson’s words had real-world impact: his false claims about Canada’s Bill C-16 and his public misgendering of actor Elliot Page that led to YouTube penalties. Both instances are grounded in evidence, not opinion, and together they illustrate how his voice has fueled anti-trans hostility.

    What Was Bill C-16 Actually About?

    When Canada introduced Bill C-16 in 2016, the purpose was clear. The bill extended protections in the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code to cover gender identity and gender expression, ensuring that trans people could not be legally discriminated against in housing, employment, or public services. Peterson went on record insisting that the bill would criminalize refusal to use someone’s chosen pronouns and that he could be arrested for declining to comply. He described the legislation as a form of compelled speech, warning that Canadians would face state punishment for what they did or did not say.

    How Legal Experts Debunked Peterson’s Claims:

    Legal experts immediately pushed back. Brenda Cossman, a University of Toronto law professor, explained that Peterson’s interpretation was simply wrong. The law did not create new criminal offenses, nor did it authorize arrests for pronoun misuse. Instead, it placed gender identity and expression alongside race, religion, and disability as protected categories. Kyle Kirkup, another legal scholar, stressed that the legislation did not criminalize speech but instead provided mechanisms for addressing discrimination under existing human rights law. In other words, Peterson’s widely broadcast warnings were false. By misrepresenting Bill C-16, he cast a law designed to protect vulnerable people as a threat to free expression, distorting public understanding and fanning the flames of anti-trans panic.

    The Elliot Page Controversy: From Words to Consequences:

    Years later, Peterson’s rhetoric crossed another line, this time aimed directly at an individual. In 2022, he targeted actor Elliot Page, who had come out as transgender in 2020. On Twitter, Peterson misgendered Page, referred to him by his former name, and accused him of committing a “criminal act” simply for receiving gender-affirming surgery. Misgendering and deadnaming are widely recognized as forms of harassment, and Peterson’s comments were not neutral critiques of policy. But they were aimed squarely at a trans man living publicly and proudly.

    How Platforms Responded to Peterson’s Harmful Content:

    The controversy deepened when Peterson used his YouTube platform to expand on those remarks. In videos uploaded to his channel, he misgendered Page again and compared gender-affirming healthcare to Nazi-era medical experiments. This comparison was inflammatory and grotesque, equating the lifesaving care sought by trans people to some of the worst atrocities in human history. YouTube responded by demonetizing at least two of his videos, citing violations of its ad-friendly and hate-speech policies. The enforcement notice confirmed that Peterson’s content had crossed the line into harassment and harmful rhetoric. For a creator of his size, demonetization was a major penalty: his videos could no longer generate advertising revenue, and their visibility was curtailed. The action was widely reported by outlets like Axios and documented by watchdog organizations such as GLAAD, underscoring that this was not a matter of debate, it was a formal acknowledgment by one of the world’s largest platforms that his anti-trans speech was unacceptable.

    Why This Pattern Matters for Trans Communities:

    These two moments, taken together, illustrate a consistent pattern. In the case of Bill C-16, Peterson distorted a legal protection for trans people, framing it as an assault on free speech when no such threat existed. In the case of Elliot Page, he engaged in direct harassment, weaponizing misgendering and historical trauma to attack a visible trans figure. Both are documented, verifiable, and consequential. One misled the public about law, the other triggered enforcement action from a global platform.

    This matters because Peterson’s words do not exist in a vacuum. His misrepresentation of Bill C-16 has echoed across international debates, shaping narratives that oppose protections for trans people in other countries. His attacks on Elliot Page amplified harassment against one of the most visible trans men in the world, reinforcing stigmas that make everyday life dangerous for trans communities. The facts are not abstract. They show how rhetoric becomes reality, shaping law, culture, and personal safety.

    Jordan Peterson claims to defend free expression, but these cases reveal something different: a pattern of misrepresentation and targeted hostility. Bill C-16 did not compel speech or create new crimes, despite his warnings. Misgendering Elliot Page was not free inquiry, but harassment that led to real penalties. Both moments are on record, both have been fact-checked, and both prove the same truth — his rhetoric is not neutral. It is anti-trans, it is harmful, and it has been met with consequences.

    Poeaxtry’s Link

    What experiences have you had with misinformation about trans rights?

    How do you think we should respond when public figures spread harmful rhetoric?

    Share your thoughts in the comments.

  • Joe Rogan and Transphobia: How His Platform Amplifies Harmful Narratives

    Joe Rogan and Transphobia: How His Platform Amplifies Harmful Narratives

    Joe Rogan, one of the most influential podcasters in the world, has repeatedly used his platform to promote harmful ideas about transgender people. While some of his commentary may appear casual or comedic, the cumulative effect of his words perpetuates misinformation and stigmatizes a community already facing high levels of discrimination.

    Rogan has publicly misgendered prominent trans figures, including Caitlyn Jenner, suggesting that her transition is more performative than authentic. He has hosted guests like Abigail Shrier, whose controversial book Irreversible Damage promotes the debunked theory of “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” framing trans youth as victims of social contagion rather than individuals with valid experiences of gender dysphoria. By amplifying these perspectives without critical challenge, Rogan normalizes skepticism and hostility toward trans identities.

    Sports have also been a recurring theme in Rogan’s rhetoric. His comments on transgender athletes such as Fallon Fox and Lia Thomas frame their participation as inherently unfair, emphasizing biological differences in a way that dismisses the reality of trans athletes’ lived experiences and the inclusive policies many organizations employ. These remarks reinforce the false narrative that trans people are threats to cisgender norms rather than competitors on equal footing.

    Beyond interviews, Rogan’s own material often veers into transphobic humor. His Netflix special Burn the Boats included jokes that mocked transgender people, contributing to a culture that trivializes their existence and struggles. Even seemingly absurd claims, like the debunked “litter box in schools” rumor, have been repeated by Rogan, giving them credibility in the eyes of his massive audience.

    The impact of such commentary is not hypothetical. Public figures with massive reach have a measurable influence on social attitudes, and when misinformation is normalized on platforms like The Joe Rogan Experience, it can fuel legislation that restricts trans rights, embolden harassment, and create hostile environments in schools and workplaces.

    Holding influencers accountable is not about silencing opinions… it’s about recognizing the power that comes with a platform and the real-world consequences of amplifying harmful narratives. For Rogan, casual dismissal or mockery of trans experiences contributes to a broader pattern of marginalization, one that demands critical scrutiny rather than passive consumption.

    Links

  • Ben Shapiro. Loud, wrong, and a misogynist

    Ben Shapiro. Loud, wrong, and a misogynist

    Ben Shapiro is a figure known for his aggressive debating style and political commentary. However, beneath the loud persona lies a consistent pattern of misogyny that permeates much of his public discourse. His treatment of women is not simply a matter of ideological difference. But it is a devaluation of their lived experiences, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and dismissing genuine social struggles.

    One glaring example is his reaction to Cardi B’s 2019 song “WAP.” Instead of engaging with the cultural impact or significance of the song. Benny chose to mock female sexuality, expressing confusion over basic female anatomy by suggesting that natural bodily responses were signs of illness. This public display of ignorance was not just embarrassing; it reflected a deeper discomfort with women’s autonomy over their own bodies.And to that I say, “Sorry you never got your wife’s pussy wet, Benny boy.”

    Beyond isolated incidents, Shapiro routinely diminishes feminist concerns, framing issues like the gender wage gap, domestic violence, and reproductive rights as emotional exaggerations. In his narratives, women’s experiences are often reduced to tools for debate rather than reflections of systemic inequities. When discussing abortion, Shapiro approaches the topic with philosophical hypotheticals, sidestepping the urgent realities faced by pregnant individuals lacking access to healthcare. His logic-driven rhetoric is a guise that masks the real human cost of policies affecting women’s rights.

    This pattern of rhetoric does more than provoke controversy, it contributes to a social climate where women’s voices are delegitimized and their struggles trivialized. By positioning himself as “too logical” for feminist discourse, Shapiro reinforces a toxic environment that blames emotion rather than addressing entrenched sexism.

    Understanding Shapiro’s misogyny is essential for recognizing how media figures shape public perception and normalize disrespect towards women. His words have consequences, contributing to broader cultural issues of the gender inequalities women face.

    Here we document and provide space for those targeted by voices like Shapiro’s to share their truths and challenge the narratives that silence or diminish them.

  • 📢 Elon Musk says his eldest son is dead.

    📢 Elon Musk says his eldest son is dead.

    But she isn’t. She’s Vivian Jenna Wilson, a trans woman whose identity Elon Musk has repeatedly refused to acknowledge publicly. This denial is not just personal; it is part of a broader, troubling pattern of control and erasure.

    Sources close to Musk reveal he has taken an engineering approach to reproduction — using sex-selective IVF techniques to ensure his children are assigned male at birth. Vivian herself has spoken out, describing how “her assigned sex at birth was a commodity that was bought and paid for.” This chilling statement underlines a disturbing mindset that treats human identity as a product to be designed, not an inherent aspect of a person’s being.

    When Vivian came out as transgender, instead of supporting her, Musk went as far as to claim she was dead. This act of deadnaming and erasure is more than insensitive — it’s a deliberate effort to erase a trans person’s identity, coming from one of the world’s most influential figures.

    Musk’s pattern of erasing trans identities extends beyond his family. His public statements about pronouns as “aesthetic nightmares” reveal an outright dismissal of trans experiences. More alarmingly, under his ownership, Twitter has repeatedly deadnamed trans users, suppressed trans voices through algorithmic shadowbanning, and failed to implement meaningful policies against transphobia on the platform. This institutionalized erasure amplifies the harm done by personal denial, leveraging corporate power to silence marginalized communities.

    This is not an accident or a misunderstanding — it is a deliberate and harmful approach with profound consequences. Trans people face higher rates of mental health challenges and violence, and erasure from powerful figures like Musk contributes directly to these risks.

    Erasure and deadnaming by influential individuals and platforms are forms of violence that perpetuate stigma and discrimination. They deny the legitimacy of trans identities and make public spaces unsafe for trans people. Musk’s actions and the policies enforced on Twitter under his leadership create a hostile environment that affects millions of users worldwide.

    Vivian’s story is emblematic of larger issues about power, control, and visibility. When billionaires weaponize their influence to erase trans identities, it sends a dangerous message: that trans people’s lives and experiences can be ignored, denied, or invalidated if it suits the powerful.

    But resistance grows too. Communities, activists, and allies continue to fight for trans rights, visibility, and dignity — calling out erasure wherever it happens. The fight for transgender justice is also a fight for respect, humanity, and basic rights.

    We must keep spotlighting these injustices and push for accountability — both personal and corporate. Elon Musk’s treatment of Vivian and the trans community is just one example of how bigotry can hide behind wealth and tech innovation. Recognizing this is the first step toward meaningful change.

  • 📢 Donald Trump isn’t “controversial.” He’s racist.

    📢 Donald Trump isn’t “controversial.” He’s racist.

    We’re not gonna keep pretending this was about “policy.” That it was “just politics.” That any of this was ever neutral.

    Donald Trump didn’t “divide the nation”; the nation was already divided. He just took a fucking blowtorch to it and got rich doing it.

    He didn’t build anything. He exploited what was already broken. He played white America’s fear like a damn fiddle and then sold tickets to the concert.

    Yes, from the beginning? It was racism.

    When he announced his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants drug dealers, criminals, and rapists. It wasn’t some offhand moment. It was the start of a plan. It was a signal to white supremacy: I’m your guy. Given his face looks like that little racist frog meme and all.

    This wasn’t new. He’d already been pushing that racist birther lie about Obama for years, acting like the first Black president wasn’t legit because his skin made Trump uncomfortable. It wasn’t “doubt.” It was hate. That’s what got him attention. That’s what built his base.

    He kept going.

    He called for a Muslim ban.

    He referred to Black and brown countries as “shitholes.”

    He told Black women in Congress to “go back” where they came from. Three were born here though, I don’t think any of Trumps wives were.

    He refused to condemn white supremacists. Told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” They heard him. Loud and clear.

    And this whole time he was being taken to court by E. Jean Carroll for sexual assault. She won. He was found liable for sexual abuse. That’s not speculation. That’s not internet gossip. That’s legal fact. You voted for a rapist and a man who is proven to have said he just can’t help himself around beautiful women and I’m sure you know the rest of the line. I mean for Christ sake your vote was for a racist walking meme.

    So while he was out here calling immigrants rapists , he was in court being held responsible for exactly that kind of violence. But the media won’t call it rape. They say “scandal.” They say “controversy.” They say “misconduct.” Nah. Say what the fuck it is.

    Your president is a RAPIST!

    This country made excuses for him. Over and over again. It’s not “bias” to say he’s racist . And it’s restraint not to say worse, honestly.

    And we’re not gonna do the media’s job and soften this shit for you.

    This is Poeaxtry’s Poetry Prism.

    We don’t worship people who use power to abuse.

    We don’t confuse “influence” for integrity.

    We don’t forget.

    We document the harm and provide a space for those targeted by Trump’s hate to share their own truths and reclaim their voices.

    Stick around for more.

  • The Blackout Poem I Never Thought I’d Make 

    The Blackout Poem I Never Thought I’d Make 

    I didn’t think blackout poems were for me. I’ve never considered myself a visual artist, not in the least bit. I wasn’t sure I had the eye for it. Then I saw this comment, before work tonight, and something clicked.

    It was a public comment on my Facebook, under a WordPress post I’d shared. I wrote the post on a topic that I feel strongly about: that I’m not “LGBT without the T.”

    The man who commented wasn’t a follower. He was just some creep who had something cruel to say, like people often do when they’re not being watched. Sending in the comment and, blocking me this afternoon while I was asleep for work.

    And before I could even reply. I don’t delete comments, and I usually kill with kind snark. But this time, I made him into forever art.

    I blacked out the rest.

    And what was left.. well that is the art.

    I didn’t expect to like this process. I didn’t expect to feel like I could even do it.

    Now I have and, it feels like something I’ll keep doing.

    There’s something quiet and satisfying about revealing the truth that was already buried in the noise.

    Hate comment from Chris “you can’t remove the t from pretending either…”
    My first thought is let’s make it pretty
    The comment turned into art says “you can’t remove being yourself”
    The art Chris helped me make

    Links Ko-fi a song?

  • Dr. Seuss Was Racist: The Truth They Hid in Plain Sight

    Dr. Seuss Was Racist: The Truth They Hid in Plain Sight

    Theodor Seuss Geisel, widely known as Dr. Seuss, is often celebrated as a beloved children’s author whose whimsical stories have enchanted generations. However, beneath this nostalgic legacy lies a troubling reality of racism. Dr. Seuss was also responsible for spreading racist imagery, harmful stereotypes, and participating in practices that reinforced systemic racism.

    During World War II, Geisel created political cartoons for the U.S. military and newspapers that featured dangerous caricatures of Japanese Americans and other Asian people. These cartoons amplified xenophobic sentiments and contributed to public support for the forced internment of Japanese American citizens, a grave injustice that violated civil rights and caused lifelong trauma. That is still widely ignored by people as a whole when speaking on American transgressions against minorities.

    Beyond his political work, Dr. Seuss’s children’s books included offensive and demeaning portrayals of Black, Asian, and Indigenous peoples. His illustrations often leaned on racial stereotypes that reduced complex cultures to exaggerated, harmful tropes. The severity of this imagery was such that in 2021, several of his titles were officially pulled from publication by the publisher due to their racist content.

    Adding to this, less known but equally disturbing, is Geisel’s association with pamphlets circulated during the early 20th century that listed people of color for sale under racist terms that commodified them in deeply offensive ways. This reflects a direct involvement in perpetuating dehumanizing views of Black people and communities of color. It underscores that the harmful narratives linked to Dr. Seuss go beyond caricatures in books and into real-world racist practices.

    Dr. Seuss presents a confusing legacy of contradictions. The reality of his good vibes and racism” is summed up by “green eggs, red flags”. While his playful stories like Green Eggs and Ham charm generations, these beloved tales mask the red flags hidden beneath. His cheerful façade conceals troubling racist imagery and messages that demand a closer, critical look. This contrast shows how something seemingly innocent can still carry deep and harmful issues. Also reminding us to question and unpack what we celebrate.

    These facts highlight a deeply problematic side of a figure many of us grew up idolizing without question. It reminds us that cherished childhood stories and authors can harbor legacies of racism and oppression that deserve acknowledgment and critique.

    The cultural impact of these racist portrayals is significant, given the widespread reach of Dr. Seuss’s works in schools and homes worldwide. When children are exposed to stereotyped and racist imagery under the guise of innocent stories, it reinforces prejudiced worldviews early on. This demands a critical examination of the stories we pass down and the voices we elevate.

    We don’t buy books to worship. We buy them to question. So thrift, borrow, secondhand your way through the wreckage of art, but be the voice for those who cannot be one. Point out what’s broken when you see it. Respect the talent, when it exists, not the trash. Respect the people affected more than the pen.

    So if you grew up on the racism of Dr. Seuss tell me did you notice the issues before? Did you know he was involved in more than cute kiddie books? Or do you think I’m out of line?

    Links coffee Amazon

    Trump Shapiro

  • Stephen King and the Horror of Ableism: When Disabled Women Are the Monsters

    Stephen King and the Horror of Ableism: When Disabled Women Are the Monsters

    Stephen King is undoubtedly one of the most prolific and influential authors in modern horror literature, but his depiction of disabled women often falls into troubling patterns that reinforce damaging stereotypes. In particular, the characters Annie Wilkes from Misery and Jesse from Gerald’s Game illustrate how King’s narratives tend to frame disabled women either as violent threats or tragic victims, a portrayal that not only simplifies disability but also perpetuates societal stigma.

    In Misery, Annie Wilkes is introduced as a physically disabled former nurse who rescues author Paul Sheldon after a car accident. However, as the story unfolds, Annie’s disability becomes closely intertwined with her erratic and dangerous behavior. She kidnaps Paul, holding him captive and subjecting him to physical and psychological torture. The character’s violent instability is amplified by her disability, which reinforces the harmful trope of the disabled individual as inherently unstable or dangerous. This representation can contribute to real-world prejudices by implying that disability is connected to unpredictability and violence, rather than portraying Annie as a complex person shaped by many factors beyond her physical condition.

    On the other hand, Gerald’s Game presents Jesse, a woman who becomes physically disabled after a traumatic event—a bondage game with her husband that goes wrong, leaving her handcuffed and stranded in a remote location. Jesse’s character is depicted with more psychological nuance as she battles not only her physical limitations but also her history of trauma and abuse. While this portrayal gives insight into the emotional and mental struggles tied to disability, it still frames disability largely through the lens of suffering and victimhood. Jesse’s survival story is powerful, but King’s focus on trauma risks reducing her disability to a symbol of pain rather than allowing for a broader, more empowering representation.

    Fact 1: Studies of disability in media highlight that disabled women are often confined to narratives of victimization or menace. Annie Wilkes’s violent actions in Misery and Jesse’s vulnerable predicament in Gerald’s Game both echo these patterns, emphasizing danger or helplessness as defining traits.

    Fact 2: These portrayals perpetuate social stigma against disabled women by framing their identities through extremes of fear or pity, limiting public understanding and empathy for their real-life experiences.

    King’s depictions mirror broader issues within popular culture, where disability is frequently sensationalized or used as a shorthand for horror and tragedy. This oversimplification overlooks the complexity and diversity of disabled individuals’ lives and fails to challenge the biases that continue to marginalize disabled women.

    Furthermore, the cultural impact of King’s storytelling is significant because of his vast audience and influence. When such stereotypes go unchallenged, they reinforce misconceptions and contribute to the social exclusion of disabled people. It is essential for media creators and consumers alike to critically analyze these portrayals and advocate for stories that present disabled women as fully realized individuals with agency beyond their disabilities.

    Adding to this complexity is the inequity in whose perspectives are valued when discussing disability. Disabled creators and activists who critique harmful portrayals are often dismissed or labeled as “dramatic” or “attention-seeking,” while mainstream authors like King receive less scrutiny. This double standard highlights ongoing challenges in elevating marginalized voices and underscores the importance of amplifying authentic narratives from disabled women themselves.

    By addressing these issues openly, readers and creators can push for more accurate and empathetic representations in literature and media, helping to dismantle stigma and foster a culture of inclusion.

    Have you noticed these instances in work from “the king” of horror? Do you also see the ugliness they perpetrate?

    Links Etsy song

  • Quentin Tarantino’s Use of the N-Word Isn’t “Edgy”—It’s Exploitation

    Quentin Tarantino’s Use of the N-Word Isn’t “Edgy”—It’s Exploitation

    Let’s not pretend this is new. Quentin Tarantino has a long and well-documented history of using the n-word in his films. But what makes his case especially disturbing isn’t just the frequency of its appearance. It’s that he casts himself to say it.

    This isn’t incidental. It’s not some “gritty realism” or “necessary evil” in the name of authenticity. Tarantino doesn’t just write scripts where racial slurs. He inserts himself as the mouthpiece for them. The industry then claps for it.

    Over and over, in movie after movie, he writes the word, directs the scene, walks on camera, and delivers it. Full control, full authorship, full power. This isn’t a creative accident. It’s a pattern and a choice.

    Take Pulp Fiction. He plays Jimmie, a white man. Jimmie casually spits the n-word while discussing a dead Black man in his garage. There is no reason this scene needed to include that word. There is certainly no reason Tarantino had to be the one saying it. He’s the writer. He’s made any choice. Not only that, but he chose that.

    People have called this out many times. They include critics, scholars, Black viewers, and even fellow filmmakers. Yet, the industry still refuses to hold him accountable. Instead, they’ve labeled him “a provocateur,” a “visionary,” a “master of raw dialogue.”

    What does it say that a white man can repeatedly use anti-Black slurs in entertainment? He profits from it all while Black creators constantly have to justify even showing their pain.

    This Isn’t About One Word. It’s About Control.

    Tarantino’s use of racial slurs isn’t about storytelling. It’s about power.

    White filmmakers like him write themselves into roles that allow them to say the n-word on screen. They’re not pushing boundaries. They’re reinforcing a long history of white ownership over Black narratives. It’s voyeuristic at best, violent at worst.

    This dynamic isn’t limited to Tarantino, but his case is one of the most egregious. He profits from Black trauma. He peppers his scripts with the aesthetics of Blackness by using slang, music, and cultural references. He even includes entire character archetypes. Then he centers himself and other white people in the telling.

    Even Django Unchained, which they say features a Black hero, focuses largely on white characters during its runtime. These include white saviors, white villains, and white storytellers. And again, the n-word appears more than 100 times. It’s everywhere. Gratuitous. Heavy-handed. But in interviews, Tarantino defends it as “truthful” or “necessary.”

    Truthful to what? Necessary for whom?

    You don’t get to use realism as a shield when you’re writing the fiction yourself.

    When bipoc tell their Stories, they are silenced. When He Tells Them, He’s celebrated.

    Here’s the part that stings the most. A project by a Black or Indigenous filmmaker with the same level of graphic violence would contain racial slurs. It would include cultural trauma similar to Tarantino’s films. Such a project would be torn apart in the press. Their project would include racial slurs. It would also involve cultural trauma, similar to Tarantino’s films.

    They’d be accused of exploiting pain. Of playing the victim. Of being too angry. They are told their stories are “too much” or “not universal enough.” The same people who praise Tarantino’s “grit” would call others “divisive.” Or worse yet, “irrelevant.”

    When minorities create art rooted in our reality, they call it trauma porn. When he does it, they hand him awards.

    Black creators have to walk a razor-thin line. They balance honest expression with marketability. They tone police themselves at every turn just to be taken seriously. Meanwhile, Tarantino gets to waltz into the conversation, drop the n-word a dozen times, and get called authentic.

    That is the very definition of privilege.

    It’s Time We Say It Plain.

    This isn’t about whether Quentin Tarantino is “racist” in the most obvious sense. This is about who gets to tell stories and what they get praised or punished for.

    Many people of color hesitate to share their own experiences with racism. It’s because minorities know how these experiences will be received. We’ve all as minorities have seen it too many times. We are labeled attention-seeking. Dramatic. Angry. Bitter. Especially those of us whose difference is their race.

    Meanwhile, a white man says the n-word on screen, over and over again. Sometimes, he does this while laughing about a corpse. Other times, it happens while playing slave masters, and the media calls it brave.

    They say it’s bold. They say it’s raw. Worse by far is them say it’s “grit.”

    Let’s say what it really is: exploitation.

    And let’s stop pretending it’s anything less.

    So if you’re a fan of his work, and you’re willing to say why, please enlighten me. If you’re one of the same standpoint as me, please add anything to your comment. Mention anything you see that he does that accompanies his racism in writing and directing.