#<- implied and not actually- just percieved

[s0fti3w1tch]

"Ghost" in My Dreams

[context] Raph was the last to see Leo before he disappeared. The guilt haunts him.

[paint-it-dead]

-"Start Here" by Caitlyn Siehl

[shiorisdefenseattorney]

Is Juri's problem really idealizing Shiori in some way? The prevailing interpretation I've seen is that Juri should accept she fell for a snake so she can remove Shiori from the pedestal of her love. Incidentally Ruka also shares this opinion. I disagree and I'm here to be a contrarian about it!

A nonzero number of takes base their "Juri idealizes Shiori" conclusion on the "innocently cruel" line, the interpretation being she's percieving Shiori's personality as sweet and innocent. But that's not what the line is getting at. Juri's emphasis here is not innocence as a synonym for purity, it's innocence as a synonym for ignorance and naivety. Both Utena and Shiori are "innocent" because they are unable to anticipate the queer dynamic, the deviant lesbian desire, that Juri is operating from, and "cruel" because, in their misunderstanding, they step on Juri's toes in unintentional ways.

Even though we, the audience, know in retrospect that Shiori meant to fuck Juri up, the exact way she did it was a freak accident, and at this point in the story she has no idea that she managed to hurt her. Shiori is operating from a different understanding, one that assumes Juri's absolute conformity to and supremacy in heteronormative gender roles. Shiori's whole mission is proving her value over Juri on that axis, obviously because as a suppressed homosexual she feels insecure about her continuing obsession with Juri. She assumes "beating Juri" at attracting men will balance the scales-- render Juri's image less appealing, and hers more. And of course that would hurt Juri, who must value her success with boys so much. That lack of awareness is what Juri is referring to, and she's right here actually, about both Shiori and Utena-- they are unable to conceptualize desire for other women as a potential outcome, and in part it's because of this that they end up harming themselves and others.

Moreover the "innocently cruel" line does not imply that Juri thinks Shiori is an innocent person because, if anything, Juri does nothing but doubt Shiori throughout the series.

At no point does Juri say anything positive about Shiori's personality or their friendship. She is unable to frame her ex-bestie's existence outside of the pain she's caused her. The narrative purposefully never tells us why she fell in love with her in the first place, or what their friendship was like. We don't know why she chose Shiori specifically, and that's part of the mystique of Juri's feelings and of their relationship, that the audience will never see who Shiori is outside of Juri's heartbreak. She could have a vibrant personality, but it's thoroughly obscured by the opacity of Juri's despair, and Ohtori 's miasma. Not to mention Shiori's own internalized homophobia, compulsory heterosexuality, and chosen constructed persona-- just like a lot of other bitches trapped in Ohtori. This is what the place does, it chews up queer teenagers and doesn't spit them out so much as it arranges them neatly into a series of possible stage roles.

Juri's current image of Shiori is of a witch. It's possible she used to think of her as a princess, sure, but then she inverted the role once Shiori acted out. If anybody's idolizing anybody, it's Shiori. She is the master of rendering other people into shining beacons!

I have more thoughts forming on how Juri's "casting" of Shiori plays out through her final duel (does Shiori's mistreatment by Ruka briefly return her to her role as a princess to Juri's gallant prince-- but this proves unsustainable or undesirable, because princehood makes her too vulnerable or liable to corruption?) but they're half-baked at this time.

I do think though that Juri's "miracle" might be "making [Shiori] understand [her] feelings" literally-- not necessarily having Shiori return them (though that idea looms over her including in her understanding of what a man could do in her place, thanks to Ruka for the reminder). The miracle may be finding some way for Shiori and others to understand who Juri actually is without making herself vulnerable or diminishing the ease with which she moves through the world. She doesn't want to get stabbed with those swords of hatred. So many people don't seem to understand her, yet Juri is terrified of embodying anything other than an impenetrable image of excellence...! Girl watch out!! You're just embodying the reason why Shiori resents you in the first place!!! Those swords are coming at you no matter what!!!

[blueishspace]

Scott says Pearl's memory is selective so I rewatched her DL pov.

And he's kinda right? But also is doing much of the same thing.

Part 1/3

Episode 1 p.1 Communication and Strategy.

Let's start from the basic thing everyone even non fans with friends that are into the series know. Scott abandoning Pearl.

...

Which is something he doesn't do, not really at least, that would imply that they were allied in some way and he left. He might be her soulmate but that does not mean he has to team with her. By all counts It's simply a game mechanic and nothing more, she isn't entitled to an alliance with him. Sure there's an expectation for it to happen but it is not a rule, you can't abandon something you never had.

What about Last Life? It doesn't matter, not when it comes to Pearl, alliances almost never stick trough different seasons. It matters to Cleo and Scott: One of the reasons Scott and Cleo teamed up was because in Last Life they didn't have the chance to be in the alliance for as much as they wanted since Cleo had died and gone to red and then Scott went to red soon after Cleo went back to yellow. It was an alliance decided and agreed upon based on the fact they both felt robbed by the previous season. But the same doesn't apply to Pearl, it could have had she met them and talked to them about it but she didn't and so they likely interpreted it as her not caring about it.

Pearl interprets it as abandonment because ahe came in late, she doesn't understand the way the life series works yet. She expected the alliance and friendship to last from the previous season, it is not her fault either. It is entitlement born not out of selfishness but by a lack of communication.

Pearl THINKS Gaslight, Gatekeep, Girlboss has value because she sees Scott and Cleo together but she lacks the context for that and ends up using it as a reason fro Scott to not reject her, at the same time Scott feels that Pearl doesn't care and is expecting his loyalty because of a game mechanic neither has control over and even worse, at least by his standards, an old alliance. He has a very weird definition of what loyalty is but it's something he cares about strongly and it something vital to his character.

And Scott is definitely is hurt by Pearl's actions and It's really really obvious: Scott is a man of logic, he is rational, he sees he only has a life left and decides not to do a boogie kill because he might just die and go to red anyway, he sacrifices himself again and again to give his teammates better chances, ge does not care... But there he does something strategically stupid, not teaming with the person who's health he shares. He is emotionally hurt by what he percieves to be Pearl's lack of care, this is the first time since third life he acts out of emotion over logic. From Cleo's pov we see how much he panic when he realizes he's bonded to Pearl and that she is in the nether.

And even when Scott comes back to say something extra he doesn't target Pearl, he uses the horn to annoy Martyn. From his pov it is Pearl that betrayed him but he decides to be mean to Martyn instead of her. I think this says a lot more then words van about how he viewed this thing.

Episode 1 p.2 Cleo and Martyn are assholes.

Oh boy, those two on the other hand made everything much worse for Pearl.

Martyn ACTUALLY betrayed and abandoned Pearl, unlike Scott he wa working together with her. She had reason to expect him to stick with her especially after they were both refused by their soulmate partners. But he doesn't, despite everything, despite knowing she didn't take Scott's rejection well he still leaves her alone. Pearl does not actually begin to spiral when Cleo and Scott choose eachother over their soulmates, she begins to spiral only once Martyn decides that's it better to leave, when he decides being alone is better then being with her.

And Cleo... she eggs them both Scott and Pearl on so much. Like at least Scott tries to be civil and explain himself at the start but Cleo... well she is ruder during the entire conversation.

Even worse, most of the escalation is done by Cleo and Martyn getting louder at eachother and drowning out Scott's and Pearl's arguments. If the previous part was about how Scott's and Pearl's situation happened because of miscommunication then this is to say that it happened because Cleo and Martyn made it virtually impossible for communication to actually happen.

Episode 2 p.1: Snow and Scar(s)

I think everyone knows how it wasn't Pearl that came up with the powdered snow bit, it was started by Scar as a way to mess with Grian...

And not only that. Everyone usually thinks about the homewreckers during Double Life but Scar during the season does a lot of things towards making other soulmates pair distrust eachother, he's the one that makes the chicken games and I think he knows full well what he's doing. He knows what happened to Pearl and gives her a way to make it worse knowing that she is going to use it. And she does.

It does take a bit for Scott to notice, after at first he assumes she's just walking into powdered snow by accident... it takes a bit for him to suspect but what sticks with is so much she damages him. Also Scar actively searches for him to give him the snow too which makes things way worse.

And she does a lot of damage. First 4 hearts, then another 6 hearts. She does not eat to spite Scott but this only justifies him in his mind. She justifies herself saying that he has been taking damage so It's fair. Yet when she takes a bunch of damage getting goat horns and he steps in powdered snow using THE SAME EXACT LOGIC as her she takes it personally... And that It's because It's not actually logic, It's both them justifying their actions to themselves over admitting their mistakes and doing so in the same way...

Episode 2 p.2 How it could have been resolved and yet wasn't.

Still when Scott approaches Pearl soon after he's...civil. They aren't mean to eachother, sure Pearl says she's broken hearted but she's the only one that is antagonistic about it Scott actually feels bad about Tilly dying and he tries to explain himself and tries to make small talk... And he manages it, they talk and both of them still think they are in the right but things are fixable at this point in time. Scott explains the damage he's taken and while Pearl doesn't fully believe him It's a start.

And especially Scott says that he and Cleo had bonded the last session and when Pearl says that he can bond more he says that's It's going to take time. This means Pearl still wants a chance to be on a team with Scott and Scott still doesn't hate such an idea. They are still stuck blinded in their own head but in another timeline they are on a team already from the next session.

Except Scott accidentally says "Mine and Pearl's" instead of "Mine and Cleo's" when talking about his base. And Pearl starts manically claiming their base as her own... And CLEO is the one to first say that she's insane. (Cleo: I think she's lost it. Scott: I don't think she ever had it.) And this insane thing is going to stick with Pearl for the rest of the series.

Cleo is a big part because of how she deals with both Scott's and Pearl. She is probably the person Scott trusts the most other then himself and she completely supports him, she completely agrees with him on everything he says. Scott is functionally in an echo chamber in this season. A very sassy one considering their personalities.

Cleo also worsens Pearl this session...surprisingly while trying to help. She genuinely seems to be trying, she's careful and deliberate, subtly implies she should less alone and then states that just because they aren't on the same team doesn't mean Pearl can't be with someone else. She lacks the sarcasm that's usually in her voice and she seems to be genuinely trying to get Pearl to find allies for herself and not be alone...Since her and Scott chose eachother outside the bonds she too could choose to be with who she wanted. But Pearl doesn't listen and all she gets from it is convincing herself to be even more isolated.

The last nail in the coffin has to be Ren and BigB though, they die and immediately accuse her of being a villain a demoness and sorrounded by misfortune. Scott was defensive and Martyn was evasive and Cleo was sarcastic and Scar was manipulative but out of my entire rewatch of Pearl's pov this far it was the worst moment from Pearl's perspective. The most damage done to Pearl in Double Life was given by Ren.

Episode 3 Why is it Scar again, doesn't he have better things to do?

So we have found that Pearl's spiral was started by Martyn and worsened by Scar and then cleo and then Ren and bow It's Scar's turn again. Because session 2 ends with Pearl saying she was just wanting to help and session 3 starts with Scar convincing her to be actively a threat. He manipulated her into ruining the relationship with Scott once and now he's making her become what Ren said she was. So he can sell her stuff.

Now she meets again with Cleo and Scott and well... Nothing of particular importance happens in this one. Except one thing that Scott's says. (Scott's very infamous line "It's hard but once you widdle him down to nothing it works" about Jimmy is given It's actual context and it seems to not refer to Jimmy's self esteem at all so I don't know where that came from. ) Which gives Pearl the idea to annoy Scott even more.

Also important thing that happens soon is Scott saying sorry to Pearl without any sarcasm for taking damage as an olive branch and then suddenly shutting up as he processes that Pearl just created a dirt hut on his bridge. Even he doesn't tell her to take it down but suggests talking to Cleo about it since they build it. Pearl then suggests killing Cleo and even then Scott tries to calm her down by saying she can't because she is green. Pearl actually in canon comments that Scott is really nice to her and then Ren and Martyn fake burning down her base to get her attention.

[carolmunson]

okay, since some of you asked for it:

unpopular opinion but i don’t actually think eddie was a nice soft boy at all. dustin and mike are literally afraid to ask him to move hellfire. ‘he’s always revved up,’ implying that he’s always like this, always a little close to snapping. he’s not nice to them when he asks them to find a replacement. he also guilt trips them about 'taking them in like lost sheep' and shoves them off to find a replacement instead of keeping lucas included. which is why i don't understand the 'fierce protector of his friends' take because he's so quick to drop lucas just because he's 'moved to the dark side.' aka, throwing balls into laundry baskets.

which leads me to when he gets up on the table, people are not trying to fuck around with him. this is a common occurance, people are not surprised to see him up there and yelling. they aren't surprised that he's making a spectacle of himself. if eddie was soft and sweet, he would’ve gotten beat up. if eddie was soft and gentle, he'd probably be scared of jason. guys like jason in the 80s loved being macho and punching out losers — eddie just gave him the devil horns and called it a day. eddie’s absolutely gotten in fist fights before and won (his dad is a literal criminal!) otherwise someone would've thrown something or told him to shut the fuck up. people are scared of him, even his own friends! there’s more reasons than just playing DND and metal that make town certain that he’s a cult leader. you don't just assume someone is a murderer if they haven't shown any interest in violence before, especially considering his dad was likely a shitty dude. he even bullies erica when she first shows up to hellfire and only respects her when she bullies him back and bests him. he is someone you have to EARN respect from. he will never respect anyone outright or be understanding outright. he doesn't fully respect dustin or mike to start either, he views them as underlings.

even chrissy assumes he's going to be mean and scary, there's gotta be reason behind that. he's not nice or kind in school, which is likely a defense mechanism. he’s sweet with chrissy because he likes her, he has a crush on her. it’s very clear that he has since he was a kid, otherwise why would he bring up them hanging out in middle school? why would he even remember that if he hasn’t been pining for her this whole time? he admits too, albiet flirtily, that he thought SHE'D be mean and scary too, because he doesn't like people 'like that', people he assumes are 'on the dark side'. i’m sure he hoped they’d kiss a little when she went to his trailer. he's even a little sarcastic when she's there, again, defensive. 'the maid took the week off'. but ultimately, he's nice to her because he wants to kiss her and has a crush on her. i don't think it's because he's fully 'showing her who he really is'.

also he's a literal drug dealer????? like?????

he only becomes more gentle and open with dustin and co. when he gets pulled into the upside down/vecna stuff because he needs support. they grow a bond over shared trauma. and i do believe eddie had a big brother type relationship with dustin, but just like steve he loves him begrudgingly 'i love you, you little shit bag' kind of shit. i do believe he liked and cared for his friends but i also think he always had a big layer of mean kid armor on because he had a hard life growing up. how i percieved the character is 'mean bully whose secretly nice but is mean and boisterous and loud as a cover' trope. when he explains that his father taught him to hotwire, he seems bitter about it. of course he is, all the other kids were learning to play ball. but he obviously still retains this information and a whole bunch of other crime tricks from his dad. he's BEEN partaking in this shit. he KNOWS he's a shitty guy. you don't just get taught how to hotwire once and then suddenly know how to do it years later. he's done it before! multiple times! he has practice! he likely knows about warzone cause his daddy absoLUTELY had a gun or two. his dad probably took him there once. he was pulled left and right into bad shit growing up and that will HARDEN YOU. wayne says that murder 'ain't in his nature' and i'm sure it's not. i'm sure he's different with wayne, but idk, to me, it doesn't erase the fact that outwardly, i don't think eddie was nearly as sweet and gentle as people think he is canonically. i think he's a very hardened and tortured person and that even becomes clear with his reaction to chrissy's death and how he goes about things going forward. he was a weird kid with weird interests in a cookie cutter conservative town, had a criminal father, and an unconventional family situation in the 70s and 80s, that shit'll fuck you up and over -- look at boomers y'all! they are emotionally stunted! but, i could go on forever with this character analysis. so i'll stop here. but -- in the words of the real housewives reunion meme: that's MY OPINION!

[butchdykekondraki]

he was damned the second he decided to kill himself btw. he was damned the second he looked up at the stars for the last time and decided that he would never see them again btw. he was damned the second he looked at the silver and gold placed on his desk and decided it wasn't worth it anymore btw. he was damned the second he looked at his hands, at his veins, and he realized everytime he felt his own heartbeat he would be reminded of how christ would never bleed again btw. he was damned from the beginning, and this was all inevitable, but he didn't know that btw. he had no idea it was all for nothing btw. and in the end he created his own self fulfilling prophecy btw. he was never going to be able to truly live again btw. when he killed christ he killed himself btw. the only man judas iscariot killed with his suicide was a walking husk of someone once beloved by the son of god btw. and jesus had to stand over his grave btw. and he believed it was at least partially his fault that he was dead btw. if you care

thinking about judas' suicide again btw if you care

[lazygravez]

thoughts that im too tired to polish the presentation of

being ace is crazy because even though i know im part of the outlier when it comes to how you percieve bodies, i feel like im the normal one and everyone else around me is the weird one

like, the sight (or description) of body parts that arent even inherently sexual but are culturally considered sexual so therefore attractive can make you feel physically hot (in temperature) and makes your heart rate go up? it seems so fake. like a magic spell or something

"tits or ass?" idk man both are gross!!!! get away from me!!!!!

(of course theres overlap with objectification here but rn im just talking about being ace)

and are genitals supposed to be attractive? im not even sure whether genitals are aesthetically pleasing for most people. is it because they make you think about how sex feels or because they are actually attractive looking to you? actually genuine question

whenever the concept of squeezing someones chest or butt comes up i actually cringe. another genuine question: HUHH?????? is that actually pleasant for either person involved????????

quick edit: im not trying to imply that being allo is bad or that everyone is a pervert im simply sharing my perspective

[sandymybeloved]

okay, I don't know how much sense this is going to make but its been bugging me so bear with

you know how sometimes when people in a fandom go long enough without going back and rewatching/rereading/relistening to/rewhatever, that they end up with slightly warped ideas about the characters and story that are far more based on fanon than anything in the source material. I think the same thing happens with criticisms of shows, some mild critique people had at the time becomes so pervasive and considered so all consuming that it no longer gels with the source material

what got me thinking about this was reading the tags in the @adventure-showdown tournament. a not uncommon thing I read is saying they only remember a single great moment from an episode, but they remember the other story completely, so the other story must be magnitudes better. and when someone is implying that because they only remember the gallery scene from vincent and the doctor, the surrounding episode wasn't worthwhile or even any good, I can't help but think, when was the last time you watched it? was it in 2010 when it aired, if you don't remember anything other than the scene that is regularly shared, and you're criticising based on your lack of memory alone, that just doesn't end up gelling with the episode, its not really a fair criticism

more broadly, half the criticisms I see of Moffat who are almost nonsensical to me as someone who does rewatch. (I'm not going to go into the sexism stuff, my opinions on that are far too nuanced and complicated to make a good example)

one of the most common criticisms is that it made the doctor too important, which every time I see it I can't help but wonder if the person saying it even watched in the first place. Because the thing is this is an idea the moffat era actively engages in constantly, and its not a late development at all, and the conclusion it constatly comes too is that the doctor's ego is too big, he's not as important and powerful as he, or the companions, or the audience percieve him to be.

in eleven's second episode, his plan for the star whale is wrong, it's amy who concludes the star whale won't run away and wants to help. in the series 5 finale, eleven makes a big speech to all his enemies gathered above about how they're afraid of him, and it doesn't work, it is at best a minor delay in their plan, he still ends the episode trapped in the pandorica, AND it turns out the doctor was not the excistential threat they were trying to stop, its the TARDIS, they're only imprisoning him as they (wrongly) think he's the only one capable of flying her

in series 6, in a good man goes to war, after the doctor is done parading about the place, after he's done with his massive ego trip and thinking he's won the day, it turns out he hasn't, he got amy back, but not her baby, melody is gone, and any reuniting that happens later in the series has nothing to do with him in any meaningful sense. a good man goes to war is the doctor getting cocky and it ends badly for his friends

its only more explicit in the capaldi era whre 12 regularly pushes back against people considering him anything more than a guy pottering about the universe in a box helping where he can. yes he is made president of earth, but he doesn't want that, he doesn't want authority. In fact series 10 has several of his most meaningful loses, in extremis there's nothing he can do but get a message out, in oxygen he loses his sight to save bill, in the pyramid at the end of the world the world enters a state of dystopia because bill wants to save him, in the doctor falls he loses everything, including his life, only the audience knows any differently

'moffat made the doctor too important' is not a criticism that gels when you actually watch the show, because it is something his era grapples with, is the doctor powerful, is he important to the universe, and if he is, is it a problem and who for. but the criticism isn't completely unfounded, not liking the material fact that 12 got made president of earth is fine, but 5 years removed its a criticism thats warped and changed into something unrecognisable as a criticism of the show its from, when the show says at one point, not even as subtext, that 12 is just a guy travelling around in a blue box, dropping in and helping out where he can.

anyway, this is helpful to me in that i don't like assuming people are speaking in bad faith, sometimes people do just haven't rewatched recently

[traumatizeddfox]

Idk where I stand on the term narc abuse but 2 things to bring up.

First, the jury is out on if abuse via narcissistic tendencies (not related to npd inherently) via specifically the term "narc abuse" is real or not. Theres both official and unofficial sources, charities, University/medical journals, etc that acknowledge it as different from more common forms of abuse/how the abuse is brought on and why (someone being physically abused due to their abuser being on drugs and over-reacting to a small trigger vs someone getting physically abused due to percieved sin/religious undertones will have varying experiences, ones that reasonably involve different labels) this warrants a different label and plenty that do not and criticize it. I won't judge a terminology when even medical professionals can't seem to decide yay or nay. I just figured I'd mention it because the only way people know this term usually is TikTok but it's actually older than TikTok, they just picked it up. There is a difference between someone with npd and someone whose a narcissist in a non-medical/mood/personality disorder way and I do think the people trying to use the term should differentiate the two but to be fair, most people don't even know about npd and therefore would only be talking about egotistical people, not nessesarily pwnpd. I also think it's nessesary to bring up that Tumblr has obscure and hyper niche veiws on topics with zero room for conversation and just as plenty of pwnpd on Tumblr are adverse to the term, there also plenty of pwnpd on Tumblr and other platforms who acknowled/support it as a term, do not take offense and/or understand its usage and what it means without direct correlation to the disorder but more as a grouping of actions/beliefs with the label outside of medical contexts. The term narcissist and the actions associated have existed as a stand alone personality type (like sloth doesn't automatically mean someone with Chronic fatigue syndrome or Thief doesn't mean kleptomaniac) long before the disorder got its name and associations, plenty of people call egoists narcissists and it's not offensive suddenly. Understanding words have multiple meanings and contexts is important here, Rape dosent even automatically mean sexual assualt, sometimes it just means steal or kidnapping. All this to say it's budding mental health related language, it will take what already exists and expand upon it. Same as when the words triggers and gaslighting got popular then promptly died. Your free to take your stance, I'm not invalidating it, I'm just sharing some facts cause as a long time user of Tumblr, it seriously screwed my views of the world and narrowed them to a pin prick about what's acceptable and agreed upon and what isn't and should be shunned. Only after stepping outside the site did I learn just how little 90% of discourse here actually matters and affects the world at large. Consider this whole part devil's advocate but presenting only the people who side with you as evidence when this isn't a "is climate change real?" Sort of stance where 98% of the field agrees is disingenuous. The field is split here and very few people are actually considering this label to specifically mean pwnpd and more mean specific forms of mental and emotional abuse and neglect that usually comes from a place where the abuser sees themselves as better than others, see the victims as threats to their high standing and see others as means to their ends. Again, Idk if I support the term or not, I'm just relaying information.

Lastly, #2, trying to say that anyone who feels they are a victim of specifically "narc abuse" is just trying to "feel special" is fucking horrific and invalidating regardless of your feelings on the term. Regardless of the words they use to describe the abuse they experienced, they still experienced abuse and trying to imply they are lieing or attention-seeking is fundamentally abuse-apologist shit. The same shit gets said to every other victim of abuse and just because you don't like the label dose not mean they think they are special or different and what they describe is suddenly not fucking abuse. They are still actively victims even if they arnt perfect ones. I'm disabled, I'm fully aware if the term "disabled abuse" came out cause a few people got beat with grandma's cane or their disabled abuser used their mobility aid to hurt them I'd be fighting it cause that's not fair and disabled only means one thing, however, I would never EVER invalidate their trauma from that physical abuse. I would never say they never experienced any wrongs or they think they are special cause it was abuse from a disabled person. No matter where you stand, that was a fucking terrible thing to say and imply. You can shit on a label without invalidating real victims of real abuse. No one in this debate was questioning the victims until you just did, they only criticized the label they were using. You can get that victim-blaming perfect-victim shit and shove it up your ass. And no, I'm not a victim of that form of abuse, if it even exists, but I can see shit when I hear it and that was shit. Shame on you for that.

Okay first thing I want to say first is this. i am sorry if u read my post and misread it or misinterpreted what i was saying. i was not victim blaming anyone lmfao. I was NOT invalidating anyone when I said those who have been abused by narcissists think theyre special. what I was trying to say is that the language around narc abuse is that victims seem to talk about it like its a worse type of abuse. i see people say "if you have been abused by a narcissist its because they saw how special u are!!" and i think thats not ok to tell victims bc victims will romantizie why they were abused!! i remember believing my abuser (who does have npd btw) only abused me bc i was so special and he hated that!! but in reality, he abused me because he's an abuser. an abuser might be triggered by someone, they might hate someone and thats why they abuse. an abuser might have a disorder that can make them react abusively, but its because theyre an abuser. there are plenty of ppl without disorders who abuse, and there are those with npd who dont also abuse. its not a hive mind.

i do not understand why u think i was telling someone that they werent abused. if u spend more than 2 seconds on my blog u will know i validate everyone who has ever been a victim, and those who will become victims.

BUT my point was there are victims out there who seem to treat narc abuse like its a badge. we dont walk around and say ptsd abuse bc ppl would lose their shit if we ever did that. "Narc abuse" is not anything different than any other kind of abuse. can an abuser have npd? yes. can the npd make an abuser respond in a unique or different way? yes same with any pd. but narc abuse is just emotional abuse. ppl will say narc abuse and then go onto explain everything that an abuser does. "Theyre selfish" "They want control" yeah thats an abuser. i think the problem is people now look at symptoms of abuse and say narcissist. i literally see ppl call anyone a narcissist these days.

the issue i have with this as well is that i have seen and heard victims wonder if they are valid because their abuser doesnt have npd bc these victim spaces especially Tiktok have created this belief that abusers are narcissists and ONLY narcissists. can they be? yes. but can an abuser also be a neurotypical? yes.

abusers are just abusers. we dont need to slap some label on there. now is there different levels of abuse? yes ofc. emotional abuse, physical, spiritual, financial, etc are all different kinds of abuse. being abused by ur mother is different than being abused by ur teacher, or partner, etc. but it doesnt mean its worse. ofc there are SITUATIONS that can be considered "worse" in the eyes of the law but at the end of the day. abuse is abuse. a broken ankle is still a broken ankle no matter how it got broken.

victims are all on the same playing field but they try to fight each other and we need to stand together and realize that abusers are the issue!! i dont have any ISSUE or problem with victims who say they were abused by a narcissist but i do have an issue when ppl say narc abuse. and i know a lot of victims who say narc abuse might not even realize what theyre saying. i remember being that person until i started to talk to pwpd, espeically npd, did more research and realized how stigmatizing it is.

the MAIN issue with saying narc abuse is that what ur saying to people with npd that 1) they are not valid if they have been abused. 2) they are abusers. this is dangerous because its generalizing an entire group of those with a disorder that can not change or fix. a lot of victims worry if they have been the abuser bc abusers fuck with ur head thinking ur the bad guy, so if someone with npd sees a post that says all narcissists are abusers they might believe they are one when they arent. im speaking very general. every person with npd is a unique person and i dont SUPPORT every single person with npd bc ofc there are monsters out there who are also abusers , but i do support that people with npd get support and are also included when ppl say mental health matters, or believe all victims.

no one is saying that those with npd cant be abusers, what were trying to change is the language !!! before people believe everyone with schizophrenia was a violent killer until we learned that is not true. we need to do the same with personality disorders.

the history of the word rape does come from the meaning to steal, seize, or carry away but there is PLENTY of words we use in today that are not the same. just look up the history of the word "mother fucker" and you will never want to ever say that ever again. but i dont see what this has to do with ur point in mental health. no one would ever say rape when they mean "steal" we just dont use that word in that way anymore. but to add to this, its a great example as a way to change the meaning of narcissists to be only used for those with the disorder. (yeah ppl can have narcisstic tendencies, we ALL have some level of it, its how we survive but thats different than having a disorder.)

i know tumblr has always had weird takes, and some stuff is strictly an online discourse and doesnt happen irl, but that doesnt mean we cant change the way people view mental health. people have misused gaslighting, triggers, but that doesn't mean we cant stop or change that. most people learn to adapt.

but to finish, i understand where ur coming from and im sorry if u saw my post and were upset but when i see others with npd wishing they could die because they feel like a monster just because they have a diagnosis, it shatters me knowing they feel like there is no support. even therapists are sketchy with pwpd. i just think that we need to change the language around abuse. just say abuse idk why thats so hard!

[romanianradfemmefatale]

Can you help me untangle what I find so upsetting and cringe about trans women talking about “girl mode/girl moding”? It feels like ridiculing and trivializing the experience of being a woman in this society to me

Probably because their version of girl moding almost always means wearing our opressive-wear as an aesthetic. Make-up,uncomfortable skirts and clothes,heels,long nails,in order to pass. It feels like they are trivialising our opression because that's exactly what they are doing,boiling down our experiences as women to stereotypes and finding pleasure in experiencing misoginy (passing as a woman is being percieved as a woman and treated as such)

There's also an unspoken truth in the saying "I was girl moding today" implies that one can choose to be percieved as a man and experience male privilege if necessary,"girl" is just a mode,one that makes them "happy" because it's not permanent and it's not forced upon them,further proof that they could never understand what it is actually like living as a woman in our society and never will.

Girl mode is just them performing femininity. I found a comment on reddit from a TIM that says this:

"So for me the terms girlmode and boymode talk about how I present myself.

If I'm dressed femininely and are using female pronouns/name, etc... I'm in girl mode. But when I have to repress all that and dress like a boy (like around people I'm not out to) then it's boymode. It serves as a way to let others know how I'm presenting. Especially in advance. Like if I were going to a friend's place (who I'm out to) I might say "Girlmode tonight" and she'll know what I mean and to expect that I may show up in a dress. Or she can let me know that may not be a good idea because <other friend> is going to be there and they don't know or are super transphobic. Basically as a way to protect myself.

As for why it's only used for us... Possibly because for FtM's there is a bit less social stigma in ways. Like if you are seen as a girl that dresses like a guy, no one cares. But conversely a guy dressing like a girl is bigger deal. People think that's very weird or unusual. So things can blend a bit more for FtMs. (Even though in truth we are not men dressing like women... We are women. There are times when society and/or people don't see it that way.)"

Male crossdressers are seen in a less favourable light due to misoginy,but also because society knows deep down what female clothes actually represent: humiliation,and a man feminizing himself (humiliating himself) is unacceptable while a woman wearing man's clothing is not as much of a big deal today because men's clothes are actually made for human bodies therefore it is a more neutral act (as in,women are not going out of their way to make themselves uncomfortable in order to "dress like men"). So when men wear clothes that are subconscioussly meant to humiliate us for pleasure (this is why it is a fetish btw),yeah it's offensive.

[major-wren]

I made an analysis on how eggman seems to design his robots to percieve him as a fatherly figure in order to take advantage of the loyalty and devotion that would breed, and how I think he does it because even if Tails were to reprogram or rewire them to have free will, their inherent desire would be to serve their leader/to make their father proud. (You can read that post here)

Interestingly enough, The Murder of Sonic The Hedgehog came out a few days later, and in my opinion, proved this theory of mine!

Here we see them in shirts which you can assume were either made by eggman himself, or made by one his robots. On the shirt he is literally referred to as their dad.

Here he outright says that conditioning them to have a motivation is more powerful/reliable than just programming alone. (It was pretty awesome to see a theory of mine I had just posted get proven so soon after with such similar wording, I was really excited lolol).

Minor badniks like motobugs are simply programmed to target Sonic, and we've seen in the IDW comics that they'll all revert to a neutral and docile state without anyone controlling them or upkeeping them. For all robots above that level (like Sage, and Metal), they're all conditioned to see him as a father figure and rewarded for seeking his praise and serving him. He even says that the rewards they ask for are just related to him, showing how highly they view him.

This way, no matter how many chances someone like Metal is given, he will always return to Eggman, no matter what. Of course, it does lead to some rebelling, like Orbot and Cubot ditching Eggman anytime he's defeated or things get too scary (although, they're simple assistants, so he probably didn't focus too much on their loyalty). Or like Omega turning on Eggman when he was left alone too long.

Still, you've got to admit, the success with Sage, Metal, or even the Heavy King, are easily worth the risk of losing a few.

And as always, I'd like to point out, that he does seem to actually have a desire to be both a father and a leader. He seems to have real ideas about how to better the world, like accessible public transport that values citizens instead of exclusively using the railroad system for money-producing-cargo. So I think when he conditions his robots to see him as a respectable leader, it's a real desire of his, and he actually wants to be a good one, he's just too obsessed with control and ends up aggressively taking things over and removing citizens' freedoms because he thinks he knows what's good for them better than they do. He only makes himself a father to a select few of them, and in the IDW comics when he was Mr. Tinker, it seems he had a real desire and skill in being a father to Belle the Tinkerer. He also seems to have set up a relationship with Orbot and Cubot, and seems to play card games or watch shows with them, even buys them toys just for them (Cubot had a popstar figurine in the IDW comics that supposedly belonged just to him, and when it broke they made a point of bringing it to eggman). He also mentions making the Sonic Crew into toys for Sage, and although it's just a taunt, it implies the possibility that he really does build toys for her, which again, I think building toys and amusement park rides are a real passion of his, and you can read more about it in my other post.

[cazuela-time]

Ok so I've been having a sexuality crisis now that i got a boyfriend and got to experience stuff with a guy. I thought about it a lot and i reached the conclusion that a) i like him platonically, and b) I'm probably a lesbian. and i was super sure about it today but i saw the quiet place movie a few hours ago and i love male characters that are so wet and pathetic - but like, in a cat kinda way?? Like i would kiss them but in the same sense i would kiss my cat for being cute. Not in a particularly romantic sense but i do think that they're very cute?

Anyway i was thinking that and being like shit maybe im not actually gay if i like these male characters - i obviously like their personalities and shiet but the thing that makes me really like em is their look

By look i mean wet and pathetic, bloodied or fucked up in some sense, tired and nerdy looking (eric from quiet place, newt from pacific rim,etc) and then i has a small thought non thought? Like i thought it but it caught me by surprise, because for a second i was like "i wish i was him" and the thing is im non binary in the sense that i dont percieve my gender - HAVE I JUST WANTED TO LOOK LIKE THEM THIS WHOLE TIME ARE YOU KIDDING ME? IS THAT IT?? I WANTED TO STEAL THEIR GENDER PRESENTATION?

Im being so fr i always thought they were cute and so i assumed it was attraction. Did i confuse gender envy with attraction?? I am having a crisis.

WHAT EVEN IS ATTRACTION IM SO CONFUSED.

Like, i like how these brand of fictional guy look - their personalities and aesthetic are very appealing to me and sometimes i like them to the point of wanting to put them in my pocket and like, squeeze them like a little stress ball.

And if i think about real guys in my life, ive liked 3 guys -

first one i have absolutely no recollection but my mum said i had a crush so whatever (also fun fact a lil boy tried to kiss me as a toddler and apparently i wanted to NOT so bad that i got a head injury by banging my head on furniture while backing up FAST lol).

Second was in elementary and we were friends. I dont remember liking him before i asked who he liked to make conversation but i remember i thought he implied he liked me and i liked him from there on (which was like two hours lol) and later when he admited it was another girl i felt heartbroken but i immediately got over it lmao.

And last was in high school - we were becoming fast friends and i liked him a lot, but when i thought about like kissing him and stuff i got this nervous feeling like it was wrong somehow. Also i chose a guy to like in middle school but i dont count that one.

To me, all these seem very shallow? But i dont know if thats normal or if im remembering wrong or remembering what i want to remember or what.

But if i think ab it, i could never have sex with them i think. And this applies to all men ive met too - If i imagine it the whole thing feels cold,,,like detached? Like i guess it'd be fine and we would be closer as a result (like, to bond?) But i dont think it'd be particularly fun?

THEN IF I COMPARE IT TO WOMEN i dont really like many female characters? Like I'm struggling to think of any i really really like besides Grace from ready or not and Pearl from pearl (and Maxine from x and Amber from Scream - the blood thing and that they can kill is cool ngl) and while I've thought about a friend like "i wish we could be together forever" type of thing, ive never had a crush on a girl -

But if i think about sex, if i picture it with a girl, it seems warm. Like it'd be very peaceful and like joyful? Like it would be fun. But its similar to when i think of it with men: it has no passion? Is that wrong? Am i not supposed to be passionate about it?

The hardest part is that i can't figure it out because I DONT FEEL ANYTHING?? WITH ANYONE???? PEOPLE TELL ME THEY LOOK AT CERTAIN PPL AND THEY THINK "oh yeah i wanna fuck and kiss that person" and im like WHAT??? IVE NEVER IN MY LIFE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT??? i look at people and im like, yes, thats a person who is good looking, but nothing else?????

Like, i read and love nagata kabi's works and she has this part about how she and other people have a lust thing? And i looked at that and was so confused because I've never felt anything like that - bit i related to a lot of things she says. So maybe I'm asexual?? Or demisexual???

So yeah, im confused as fuck.

I somehow feel like I'm a lesbian (i literally made a huge list detailing every sapphic occurrence in my life, like for example the fact that my one and only "sex dream" was about a blonde girl in a bathtub) but i also kinda feel like what if I'm wrong? What if I'm lying to myself and I'm actually straight or bisexual?

[gaypolls]

ok i just said it doesn't really bother me but i do wanna rant a little bc it's SO insane to claim that you're only a real homosexual if you've never felt an ounce of attraction to ANYONE but your own gender... as though True Attraction is easily defined and quantifiable for everyone? as though gendered attraction is in and of itself something that involves some essence of other people's genders or whatever and not just what you percieve???

think of how many twinks have mistaken for butches and vice versa lmao. is everyone involved in those funny little mixups not a real gay anymore? hell, what about gay people in the closet who can't quite accept their attraction to their own gender yet but their "type" of the "appropriate" gender is effeminate guys/tomboys? if someone wants to enter the gay identity do they absolutely HAVE to renounce all past attraction to the "opposite" gender as fake? why? says who? why would it not be enough to say "i'm significantly happier and feel more natural embracing attraction to, and being with, my own gender"?

like yeah, personally, i do deem the attraction that i used to think i had for women as fake. but i'm an incredibly self-aware and self-analytical and generally In My Head person. i can look in there and see the throughline and know the exact reason i thought i liked girls, and hell, i can even remember the conscious thoughts i had where i was forcing myself to feel it. but i do NOT expect everyone to be the same?? like that would be insane. if everyone was as self-aware as me, specifically. that's not healthy lol.

but anyway, on that same vein, repression and the closet are seriously powerful things. there may have been a layer of conscious attempt to be masculine in the mix, but when i was 16 and searching for things to appreciate in girls' appearances and, because i was trying so hard, sometimes finding them, and acheiving that abstract feeling of attraction that i was looking for... would it really be SO insane if i now wanted to say that yes, i have been attracted to women, and i just got over it?

when i say that i'm not attracted to women now, that doesn't even mean that i have never been attracted to a single woman. it means that womanhood and femininity does not inherently appeal to me. that's where "exceptions" come in - it's literally not that deep. it's when you recognize that you're feeling something, and maybe you're unsure but it seems at least attraction-adjacent, but it's not related to the prerequisite of gender that's usually on your capacity for attraction; it's in spite of it. i have to imagine that the majority of the time when this happens, it's because the person is in fact somewhat androgynous, or some part of you percieved this person as the gender you do like when you weren't conscious of it, or there's some aspect of their appearance that has the right gendered "energy" to you. and sometimes people just look really fucking interesting, or people are just excpetionally beautiful, and it hits you so hard that it seems like attraction but you're really just in a brief moment of awe! sometimes you just enter the cosmic soup for a second!

and feeling superior about having never had this happen to you is... well, it's just that, isn't it? it's purely about feeling superior. i honestly don't even believe that it's truly the case for that one person. i feel like the internal need to say shit like that has got to come from an insecurity about the fact that you're not that "true homosexual" that you're claiming deserves to never be implied to have things in common with all other gay people.

furthermore... the notion of it being homophobic to identify as gay when you're "not 100% internally homosexual"? well i mean obviously that's the terf shit. it's the braindead idea that other people's identities take anything away from you. as if anyone actually identifies as gay "when they're actually bi" just for fun and not because their "straight" attraction is extremely incidental and/or just does not preclude actually acting on it... like duh, lol. and even if it was for fun, it literally still takes nothing. it's a completely imaginary danger.

and it's so batshit in particular bc going out of your way to harass other gay people and tell them they're not gay is objectively the fucking homophobic thing??? like how on earth do you see yourself as the better person here. christ lol

[conkreetmonkey]

idk if I've posted this before, but an UT/DR headcanon I have and don't see in others often is that humans in those worlds are not the same as the humans from ours. They're definitely more similar to us than the monsters are, but they're not the same "species" as what we'd consider to be a normal human in our world.

For starters, they can have bright yellow skin. That is straight-up canon. While we've never actually seen two humans interact in canon unless you want to count the end of genocide (which I won't because I interpret it as Chara talking to YOU, not Frisk), the fact that we now have two separate individuals with this skin tone does sort of imply it's normal. It's not a colour it's possible for a human to naturally be in our world; even when one has jaundice, it's not bright-ass Lego minifigure yellow. These kids are the colour of poison dart frogs. They're the colour of a hazard strip. That's not normal.

Given both this hint that these humans are different and the fact that all 3 humans seen in canon are universally addressed by they/them pronouns and are completely androgynous, I have a headcanon/theroy:

Humans in these worlds have no male/female sexes, no concept of gender, and no differing sexually dimorphic traits.

I do not think these humans have men and women. I think all humans are born as genderless, completely androgynous beings, and have no concept of gender within their societies. I have no idea how they'd reproduce, but I imagine them as having either no genitalia, or all having the same "set," and what it looks/functions like I have no clue. Honestly, I'm kind of leaning towards mitosis.

I like this idea for the following reasons:

Mettaton EX being so androgynous despite his identifying as a binary male would be a thing he lifted from humans, being such a fan of them and all. The thing with the four, five and six fingered gloves heavily implies he wanted his body to appear as human as possible, and I suppose that could mean combining what we would consider to be masculine and feminine traits into one metal genderbeast.

It adds a touch of "gremlinous creature" vibes to all 3 human characters; "inhuman" anatomy despite being explicitly, plot-importantly human.

The confusion about reproduction and just how tf not having gender or bio sex would work I and you are feeling right now is EXACTLY how monsters, the main in-universe demographic of both games, would feel.

Feels kind of Homestuck troll-ey, which is always a plus in any Toby Fox project because it solicits groans.

Things I percieve as flaws in this headcanon:

Kind of discredits the non-binary identities of the human characters, especially Kris, whose themes of identity, control over one's body and teenage angst are strongly complimented by a trans identity. If these characters were born non-binary, though, they wouldn't be trans for continuing to identify as such, for the same reason Mettaton and Mad Mew Mew are trans for being born genderless yet having a binary identity.

While opening narrative doors, also closes them... this is again very Kris-centric because they're older, but I've just seen so many portrayals of Kris as a non-binary kid stuck in a perisex body going through puberty that are really interesting and compliment their angst. Binders, facial hair, periods, voice changes... can't do anything with that anymore if these humans don't go through puberty as we know it, and that makes them less relatable.

It just feels bad to hc away canon trans rep like this, yk? UT/DR certainly wouldn't be hurting for it without human trans characters, but they're canonically trans, non-binary playable characters in a mainstream game. That is INSANELY rare. I cannot think of a single other example. Trans mcs are rare enough in mainstream media as a whole, let alone non-binary ones. To strip these characters of that to non-binarify their entire species feels a little... tradeoff-ey.

[anendoandfriendo]

WE NEED MORE POSTS TALKING ABOUT BEING SYSIAN AND PLURILLEAN AS LEGITIMATE ORIENTATION TERMS OUTSIDE OF BEING ASPEC.

That doesn’t make y'all invalid if a system is sysian or plurillean and that DOES make them aspec.

But not acknowledging this as a separate orientation reeks of sysmedicalism to a lot of us (as in, us, Rusanya), we see a lot of things that do this that aren't intentionally sysmedicalist but are like Just There as a direct result of plurmisic oppression (see: our vents about how roles are used, how people assume endogenics cannot have CDDs and how that implies to the world we're magically immune to trauma! regardless of your actual intentions, and similar vents).

Critical analysis skills are in fact at an all-time low and that includes being sociologically-minded, we finally figured out the words for it, thank fuck. Being able to treat a thing as legitimate as well as justified while also understanding some of the nastier aspects of the history of that thing does not suddenly mean you're endorsing the nastier thing lmao, that's like saying because you're using roman columns you're like, wdk, entirely and fully devoted a dead empire and everything it has ever said and done and condone every single tiny thing it did in the name of its wars and atrocities etc etc etc.

You get what we mean?????

But because (from our observations) that skill is just so blatantly not there for so many people everything is read in bad faith and it's assumed our intent is to attack when our intent is to, like, point out something we percieve is an actual problem. Like. Constantly. We feel like we cannot talk about things we percieve as issues (or at least, if not issues, maybe just things that are unacknowledged) pretty much ever lest we get disembowled by the online community. Jeez.

Saying it one more time: we could be wrong here, but our observations have indicated that a lot of people do not have adequate skills to identify the actual repercussions of living in a society. Not just the things that are told to you, but also what is NOT said, what is simply assumed, and what the meanings of words are to the normative power versus what YOU are saying.

And in order to like, discuss actual issues. And. Not rip people apart. That's...do people understand that is a necessary skill to have so you don't fall to propaganda, for starters?

We feel like this explains a lot of things (not in their entirety but as a common thread maybe?):

Antishippers

Sysmedicalists

Transmedicalists

Any -medicalist to be honest

People who fell down the alt-right pipeline in some way unintentionally (so, pretty much all of the above but like, can be its own thing too so worth mentioning)

And like, probably way more, but. Like. We know we're rehashing an ages-old discussion with ourselves especially when we say "propaganda exploits that type of ignorance and unwillingness to analyze things," and so, when we say "words MEAN THINGS" what we generally are saying, so, when you're deconstructing them, you HAVE to understand how those words are used when a normative power applies them to a marginalized one.

-------

That's why we also fucking fixate on system roles so much we think, they're the most direct example that we can easily apply that is relevant to us in a way that makes them easy for us to deconstruct. "Role" to us has a very specific connotation and in relation to the normative power, a "role" implies a point of purpose. The way singlets call their friends a "protector" implies a personality trait as in "oh my friend is such a protector, you know?" but saying "my headmates role is a protector" implies a point of purpose, something that as far as we are aware, is a concept introduced by singlets and then forced onto our communities as plurals and systems.

We will never tell people to stop using words the way they personally like, but, for us, the way we can see this being fixed is...just saying "my headmate is a protector" or "she's such a caregiver haha" because it no longer implies a point of purpose.

And the point of that analysis is more about "is it even useful to imply a point of purpose" because, as much as we all hate it, we DO live in a society. It's not exclusionism to ask yourself WHY you use a label, and the pathways that could have led you to that and what the alternatives could have been or could be.

A point of purpose is the language of dehumanization when applied to systems and plurals. So, let's make it so even respectability politics is no longer respectable. Nothing would make a singlet more uncomfortable than forcing them to admit we are people and to wrangle their own language against them.

Do you understand what Rusanya is trying to say when Rusanya says all of this? 😖

[meinyourbones]

"people who are anti-israel are just antisemitic" hey I can do that too! people who are anti-palestine are actually islamophobic! if you support israel in this war you are an islamophobe! except that I don't actually believe that because I am not so narrow-minded.

jews who are more concerned with the optics of israel and how they percieve its relation to antisemitism than they are with the fact that israel is acting imperialistically with the support of their imperailist friends and committing a genocide are hypocrites at best and actually hateful at worst

"it's not a genocide" please open your mind

"you can't be a colonist on your own land" it is not your land

"but they deserve it" fuck you

"antisemitism is on the rise because of this" hey, I'll give you that! but maybe don't act like every single person wanting to preserve basic human rights is trying to be part of the problem.

I will always be an agent against antisemitism. I will always show my jewish friends love and appreciation for their culture. I will always check myself and check those sround me when I see or hear antisemitsm. I cannot fully understand the burden of antisemitism experience by the jewish people but I do understand the burden of racism and homophobia and transphobia and sexism. I am the child of a diaspora; I see hatred of my people everywhere, all the time. when rises in hatred of my people occur, I leave my house fearing for my life. with all of that said, it is insulting to me when pro-israel jews act like my passion to free gaza is somehow at their expense or implying my active hatred of them. get over yourself.

I am done coddling my friends who have this mentality. you suck lmao. I hate this rise in antisemitism; it is disgusting and wrong and I want to fight it. 30,000 palestinians have died since october 7th, a vast majority of whom were innocent, and I blame Israel the state. not the people or its descendents, although some of those people are part of the problem. if hamas treats them as human shields and you think they deserve to be shields, you are as bad as hamas. period. you are part of the problem!

have some humanity. show compassion and empathy. stop weaponizing antisemitism in the name of Israel's imperialistic goals.