dragoneyes613

[dragoneyes613]

There's been a lot of discussion about how resurrected snakelike Voldemort must look so different from young handsome Tom Riddle, but if he was recognized instantly from a moment's glimpse he can't look that different.

Interestingly, this guy doesn't seem to recognize who Bellatrix is, despite her face being on the cover of the Daily Prophet after her escape.

[dragoneyes613]

Sharpclaw is everything Tigerstar could have been if he hadn't let his ambitions consume him.

[dragoneyes613]

i love psalm 137. one of the most meaningful parts to me is line 4: "how can we sing a song of the LORD on alien soil?"

it really underscores how important eretz yisrael is to us, so much so, that our ancestors couldn't imagine worshipping HaShem in a land that wasn't their. Of course, sadly, we know they had to figure it out, and so must many of us.

[dragoneyes613]

A woman could be strong without having the emotions of a brick.

- Shadows for Silence in the Forests of Hell, Brandon Sanderson

[dragoneyes613]

I like to think that, given Descendants 5's announcement, that Luisa is the second one of the grandkids to have children.

Second to Dolores of course, with her five (six) kids!

[dragoneyes613]

Descendants fusion with Cruella 2021 and Carlos attending Auradon Prep finds out he's the heir to the estate of Hellman Hall

[dragoneyes613]

Harry not having piercings is the most unbelievable thing in all of descendants. Like you're trying to tell me the guy that tried to get a crocodile to bite off his hand never got any piercings? I refuse to believe that

[dragoneyes613]

Happy ten years to Descendants

[dragoneyes613]

So the Disney wiki lists Magnifico as Amaya's ex-husband and Amaya as Magnifico's ex-wife. I guess they're no longer considered married now after the whole Magnifico-going-evil-and-getting-trapped-inside-the-mirror thing.

But wasn't Amaya only queen because she married Magnifico, who founded the kingdom? How, then, is she still queen?

Then again, it's not like there were any other relatives to take over. (see my post wondering about why Magnifico and Amaya don't have kids) Even if they're now divorced (contrary to popular belief, divorce did exist in the medieval era, although it varied based on what religion you belonged to and what country you lived in and so on), she's the closest thing to a relative there is.

Also Amaya was doing a perfectly good job of running the kingdom and nobody wants to cause unnecessary trouble.

[dragoneyes613]

I just finished Tress of the Emerald Sea what a ride you guys

[dragoneyes613]

I adore moments where the villains, or characters that are usually only in one role of the story, have a moment outside of that role.

A calm collected master manipulation being frustrated over something, or having a moment of panic as something doesn't really go right.

A cruel and vicious vile bastard just having a mundane conversation about something unrelated.

Things that do not change your entire perspective on a character or even make them sympathetic in any light, but just add a mundane layer to it all.

In the Sopranos, a show all about the mundane life of absolute cruel monsters, one of the singular moments that stood out to me was a bloody ruthless mob boss having a scene where he just reads the back of a cereal box in a sleeping robe because he is bored.

[dragoneyes613]

As I was pondering the recent development of western leftists now supporting the IRI because they are at war with Israel, thus abandoning the actual people of Iran to this brutal regime, and their earlier abandonment of Ukraine in favor of Russia, and their support for the Houthis, Hezbollah, and even in some cases the Taliban, I was trying to figured out how the hell one gets there from the starting place of supposedly supporting human rights. And the only unifying thing I can figure out is that it seems to come down to supporting anyone and any group that acts in opposition to "the West."

But why?

What's wrong with "The West"™️? What sins have been committed in the West that haven't also been committed in the East (and in plenty of cases are actively still ongoing)?

Because to my recollection, the problem that leftists theoretically have with the West is that it has been built on and amassed wealth based on colonialism, imperialism, slavery, wars of aggression, genocide, and mass human rights abuses. Many take issue with Christianity (particular in its evangelical fundamentalist iteration) as a major driving force and weapon of Western imperialism.

Those are all objectively terrible, horrifying things and good reasons to hate the West and Western hegemony — you won't get any disagreement from me there! However, none of that, no matter how deeply baked into the DNA of the West it may be, is (a) inherent to the West, or (b) unique.

In fact, the East is full of (and in large part also built on) colonialism, imperialism, slavery, wars of aggression, genocide, mass human rights abuses, and fundamentalist, expansionist religions. All of these same issues exist there too! The groups and countries western leftists are stanning are themselves guilty of these same things! So where is the value in being anti-West when the East contains the same problems?

I know I'm asking a dumb question here but: have the people supporting these groups actually thought through why they're so anti-West lately? Because I really don't think they have. There is nothing ontologically or uniquely evil about the West; if the justification for hating the West and everything that flows from it (or that they associate with it, correctly or not) is this list of egregious evil acts, surely they should hate any country or group that engages in that same evil act, no?

And I realize that there are a large number of this sort of person who are just ignorant of history and the facts on the ground outside of the West, or they have been made aware and choose to ignore it as "propaganda" or lies. Even if we rule those people out, I've encountered folks who still just have a burning hatred for the West even if they have accepted the reality of atrocities outside the West committed by non-Westerners against other non-Westerners. And that's something I just truly do not understand; like what's up with that? What gives?

[dragoneyes613]

Since the opening narration of A Big Bad Secret refers to Ramona as "A new student, well, an older student, returns to school," does that mean Ramona had already previously attended EAH and got sent to reform school from there? I've been headcanoning her as having been sent to reform school before high school - that up until now the reform school was her high school - but maybe I've got it all wrong...

[dragoneyes613]

"Many were ashamed to learn that most Jews had not fought back against the Nazis, and unfavorably contrasted their behavior with that of the Israeli Army. The expression 'They went like sheep to the slaughter' (a reworking of Psalms 44:23) was applied to the six million derogatorily. Many such critics forgot, of course, that the State of Israel had survived because its army was trained and armed. The Jews rounded up by the Nazis had had no army and almost no armaments. When the Warsaw Ghetto revolt erupted, bunkers jammed with forty Jews often had no more than one rifle per bunker. Jews who wished to escape death by fleeing from concentration camps were often stymied whether that was the morally right course; even if they succeeded, they knew that ten or a hundred other inmates might be tortured to death in retaliation. Furthermore, they could not count on support from local non-Jews living near the death camps. Polish peasants who found the fleeing Jews were more likely to alert the Nazis of their escape than to help them."

- Jewish Literacy, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, page 416

[dragoneyes613]

I don't really see how all of a sudden the camp was functioning much better when Hawkwing took over when Leafstar was missing. Isn't day-to-day running of the camp one of the deputy's jobs anyway? And it's not like Leafstar was personally tagging along on every single hunting patrol slowing them down.

[dragoneyes613]

Is it paranoid or nitpicking to perceive and object to a certain prism in media coverage of the Jewish People today? I know that sounds abstract. Please permit a few preliminary parallels to make the point.

“Frustrated drivers stuck in a traffic jam were said to be stuck in a traffic jam.”

Or: “People eating dinner at the kosher deli were said to be eating dinner.”

Or: “Fans at the ball game were said to be watching the ball game.”

Of course they were in a jam, or having dinner, or at a ball game. They weren’t “said to be” doing these things. Yet in a news story by four journalists on page one of the New York Times, we read about the June 1 firebombing of Jews in Boulder, Colorado. We read of an attack “on a group said to be honoring hostages being held in Gaza.”

Said to be honoring hostages.

A small, nonviolent demonstration, objecting to violent hostage-taking from Israel, is not acknowledged for what it is. It is only “said to be” in honor of the hostages.

Now, the marchers, who chant nothing and make no ruckus, and who are mostly Jews, have gathered in 230 locations to call attention to the hostages for more than a year and a half! It is well known what they are doing. But to four journalists at the New York Times, they are only “said to be” honoring the hostages.

What the marchers are doing cannot be credited. When it comes to Israel or to Jews — and of course, most of the time they are the same — there needs to be a qualification. They are “said to be” honoring the hostages — maybe yes, maybe no. All the journalists can know for sure is what the subjects of their reporting say. Maybe the fans at the ball game were watching a ball game — maybe yes, maybe no. We can only tell you what they say. They bought a ticket and came to the game? Not enough. That’s not evidence.

People eating dinner at a Jewish deli were said to be eating dinner — maybe yes, maybe no. When it comes to Jews, you never know.

Here is a parallel: Israel-based data on the war in Gaza is noted in news stories, but is often qualified. The data is characterized as presented by Israel, “without citing evidence.”

If the source of the data is Israel, it is stigmatized with the phrase “without citing evidence.” However, what the Gaza health ministry says about how many people Israel has killed in the current war — this data is very often cited without need for evidence. The label “without citing evidence” is not attached to data from the Gaza health ministry — i.e., from Hamas. The terror group’s figures are taken for granted. There is no “without citing evidence” qualifier.

If it is absurd to say that those who keep awareness of the hostages before the public are “said to be” honoring the hostages, the following is also absurd: to object to referring to the murderer of two Israeli embassy staffers, at a Jewish event, at a Jewish museum, as “anti-Semitic.” How can one jump to such a wicked conclusion? How can one know the murderer is anti-Semitic? Is there any proof of motive on his social media posts? How unfair to stigmatize him as anti-Semitic.

Excuse me, the murder of two Israeli embassy staffers at a Jewish event at a Jewish museum is “anti-Semitic.” What could be more anti-Semitic than murder? But no. One can only know for sure that the murderer was “thought to be” anti-Semitic.

When it comes to Jews and Israel these days, there is a creeping dehumanization. It’s at least as dangerous as the actual attacks on Jews. That’s because as of now, at least, these attacks, horrendous as they are, are limited, if growing. What could boost their recurrence exponentially is the idea that Jews and Israelis are inherently legitimate targets.

When people say “It can’t happen here,” they mean that the murder of Jews on the scale of the Nazis’ “final solution” cannot happen in our part of the Diaspora. I look at “It can’t happen here” differently. What is the “it”? The mass murder of Jews is Stage Two of the “it.” Stage One of the “it” is the dehumanization of Jews. It is to cast doubts on the character of (mostly) Jews walking nonviolently for the sake of (mostly) Jews held in captivity.

Stage One is the idea. Stage Two is the act. Stage One lays the groundwork for Stage Two.

“It can’t happen here” — but it is happening here. The idea is happening here. Nazism succeeded at mass murder because it legitimated the idea that Jews are vermin. That idea made it okay to persecute Jews and okay to kill them indiscriminately. Kristallnacht in 1938 happened because of the ideas crystallized in the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, and those ideas were crystallized in Mein Kampf much earlier. The idea ended up encouraging and legitimating the acts of 1938.

We are not at that level in this part of the Diaspora, thank G-d. But there is a discernible change. Jews don’t do good things, they are “said to be” doing them. Hamas need not “cite evidence” for its claims; Israel must.

This is not the old double standard surrounding Israeli behavior and the behavior of others. This is different, this is worse. This is a subtle undermining of the legitimacy of Israel and of its supporters not by obvious distortion or hypocrisy, but by seemingly innocent, steady, degrading insinuations. Said to be. Without citing evidence. Or, ignoring the obvious: Murder of Israelis is anti-Semitic.

Blatant anti-Semitic remarks that show up in comments sections and elsewhere take their strength and confidence from the more subtle aspersions that increasingly show up in accepted, respected media, such as the New York Times, page one.

[dragoneyes613]