#(​as opposed to having a history with them)

[linka-r9-vysocina]

"The wall wasn't built to keep citizens in, it was built to keep fascists out." Nice.

First, I am from former Czechoslovakia, and I have nowhere spoken of East Germany.

Second, sorry, the wall was there to keep us in. That's why it was there. Why would they have such a problem letting our citizens out of the country otherwise? I live here. it's nice that you have an opinion on this, but well, this is one of the facts of history. It was to keep us in. They tried to shoot you when you tried to cross it. Sorry. And if I am wrong, quick, let me just ask my parents if they were able to visit western Europe before the revolution. Oh, surprise, they weren't.

Third, "the wall was there to keep the fascists out" - as if there were magically no fascists in eastern Germany and all fascists in western Germany.

Fourth, what. "If post-reunification Germany built a wall between them and Russia to keep out communists." I don't even know where to begin with this one. Germany does not border with Russia?? There is really no such thing as "the communists", that you can "keep out"? How tf would that even work. If you look at today's European alliances, you really have to understand that half of Europe has a very hands-on experience with Russia. Why do you think that the Baltics are so wary? Hint: it's not because of foreign propaganda or because they are opposed to some philosophical concept of communism, but it's because they have experienced first hand that Russia likes to consider them their territory and they pretty much want to be independent.

Fifth, I really have no idea what my "agenda" according to you might be, because you aren't really meaningfully engaging with anything I say. If anything, my agenda is trying to bring in some context, I guess. You don't know my political views, you don't know what i think about today's politics, you don't know the discourse in my country and the ways it is shaped by our history.

I understand the need to see everything through the lense of "well if they lied us about one thing, they lied to us about everything!" - but more actors can be bad at once. The US has commited atrocities and that does not mean that SSSR were "the good ones" - just as the opposite is not true.

Once again, I highly recommend the book Postwar by Tony Judt. It's a long one, but not that hard to read and really tries to put everything into context.

I've literally said for years but the idea of mind control being real is more valuable as propaganda than actual mind control

[smhalltheurlsaretaken]

the state of youtube comment sections under any video that so much as mentions anything jewish is yet another reason why it drives me insane when people object to me doing the bare minimum of denouncing the global rise in antisemitism.

[polepositioned]

"prost and senna were so brutus/caesar coded" WRONG.

[frogeyedape]

TW for discussion about the Holocaust:

I am also not Jewish, and feel very strongly that antisemitism must be challenged wherever it pops up, because it is so pervasive, so insidious, so *easy.* A large part of my conviction comes from visiting a Holocaust museum as a child, and again as an adult. Never Again doesn't just mean no more genocides, it doesn't just mean remember the Holocaust. It means, look at the signs that led up to the Holocaust. Examine the fear & shame in myself at knowing that I could have been anyone in those pictures: victim or oppressor. It means confronting the knowledge that human monsters are still just human, and I am capable both of causing great harm and of fighting against harm. It means leaning into the knowledge that I have a personal responsibility to be someone who doesn't perpetrate genocide, to be someone who helps to prevent current & future genocides.

Antisemitism, anti-intellectualism, anti-science, anti-Black racism, the various other racisms, ableism, transphobia, etc all hold hands in support of genocide. To oppose genocide means to oppose those hatreds. To oppose genocide means to oppose dehumanization, yes, even of current oppressors. To oppose genocide is to *start small,* confronting the little sprouts of antisemitism that are constantly popping up from the massive root network, confronting & destroying or driving them out before they can get a solid foothold on the surface. If I can't confront the littlest hatreds, how can I expect to stand up to an actively genocidal regime? I expect that of myself. Therefore, I must expect of myself, require of myself to combat antisemitism and actually *do* combat it whenever I can.

I take great solace in the Jewish teaching that you don't have to finish the work, but you do have to do the work. I'm not enough to end antisemitism alone. But as part of a concerted resistance? As a member of this wave of humanity, in this part of history? I can do my little part of the work. The work is never done. I will not finish it. But I will damn well not let myself never work just because the work is hard and endless.

Why do you care so much?

I've been asked this question a few times in the past year - why I spend so much time thinking, reading, and reflecting on antisemitism, especially because I am not Jewish myself. There are a few reasons, really. One of them is that I think antisemitism is a hatred that spawns other hatreds, but even if it did not, it would still be worth studying, because the fact that it is a hatred at all is enough. The fact that antisemitism impacts Jewish people is enough of a reason to oppose it.

It's also because it's important to oppose because of the way it damages the thinking habits of people who believe it. I saw somebody say, "Jew-Hate makes you dumb," once. And though I think it was probably an off the cuff statement for them, it stuck with me, and I think they're right. In my religion, we say hatred is one of the three poisons - it can seriously harm your mental well-being in a way that deepens your suffering in all aspects of life. Often, hatred can also be spread like a contagion. It's something that destroys social harmony and causes severe social dysfunction. And right now, I think antisemitism is the most contagious of hatreds - I've seen people in my life fall off the cliff, I've been able to talk some back from it, and I've seen how so many people wander towards it without any idea that that's what they're doing.

Part of the problem is that antisemites consider themselves righteous in a way I think most racists don't. Often, you'll see "I'm not racist but" I almost never see that with antisemitism. They don't add that qualifier. They just say it. Most racists I know will make a tacit acknowledgment of the racist implications of what they're about to say - antisemitic people don't. They often even engage in anti-Jewish racism while invoking anti-racism.

I don't really know any Jewish people in real life, perhaps only two. But I don't need to know them to know that hating them is wrong. I think I also have a debt of gratitude to many people in the Jewish community because of the advances in Buddhist Studies made by Jewish people, which sounds strange - but it's true that many leading voices and researchers, both in academia and within Buddhism itself happen to be Jewish. I'm not sure why this is, but it's absolutely true. The most prolific translator of Pali into English that I can think of is Jewish. The most impactful Vipassana instructor in America I can think of is Jewish. The most impactful voice in Deity Yoga, for Tibetan Buddhism, is Jewish. People who are Jewish, for some reason, contributed probably more than ex-Christian Americans or atheists combined to the proliferation of Buddhism in the United States.

Buddhists and Jewish people are known to have a close relationship. There are a lot of different reasons for this that I would suggest, but none that add up to explain the amazing contributions to Buddhism made by American Jews.

I think another reason I have for being so interested in antisemitism as a non-Jew is the kind of... political disillusionment I've been experiencing? It's been a disturbing few years, and I haven't seen many people elaborate very well on this feeling of abandonment and horror, witnessing people who you thought shared your values become hateful and deeply violent in their beliefs. The only people I've seen consistently speak about it happen to be Jewish.

I think all of this has helped contribute to a feeling of closeness to Jewish people as a group, despite that I don't really know Jewish people in my real life, and only have one or two Jewish friends online. This year has been a horror show of watching people's minds become twisted - it's so scary in a way I can't quite capture with words right now.

I also sometimes have a back and forth with myself about when and if to mention I'm not Jewish when I talk about antisemitism, because I do think it's totally necessary to explain the perspective from which I speak, but to be honest it feels kind of icky to be like "I'm not Jewish, but antisemitism is bad", because antisemitism is bad whether or not the person saying so isn't Jewish, and I think it might be a negative for people to think "not being Jewish" is something which makes it any less valuable to be against antisemitism, and talk about how against it you are. It's very real that people who talk about antisemitism are perceived to be Jewish, and obviously, it's important not to lead people into thinking you're Jewish when you're not, but adding an "I'm not Jewish" qualifier to statements about antisemitism I worry might contribute to the perception that those against antisemitism are Jewish.

Antisemitism is such an insidious ideology. And it's everywhere. I see it daily in so many different spaces. It has the largest impact on Jewish people, but it also impacts non-Jewish people at times. I distinctly remember being mocked throughout school for "looking Jewish." I think about that Greek restaurant which was attacked because they were thought to be Jewish. Or that man in the Amsterdam violence who tried to help and was then accused of being Jewish himself. It's so deluded, violent, and manages to consume people's thoughts like a parasitic worm in their brain.

Anyways, I planned for this post to be more organized. Oops.

[wonder-worker]

"As for the government of the kingdom, [Edward V] had complete confidence in the peers of realm and the queen."

"According to the Crowland continuator, [Elizabeth Woodville] seems to have taken the king's place in listening to his council immediately after Edward IV's death. It does appear that she expected to have some role in her son's kingship, and the Crowland continuator’s report of the letters sent to her by [Richard of Gloucester] indicates that she had good reason to expect to be able to work with him and the other councillors: 'the duke of Gloucester wrote the most pleasant letters to console the queen; he promised to come and offer submission, fealty and all that was due from him to his lord and king, Edward V, the first-born son of his brother the dead king and the queen'."

"[However], in what was Gloucester's first coup, Edward V was separated from his household and Woodville advisors. When the young king questioned the move, Buckingham was reported to have told the boy 'It is not in the business of women but men to govern kingdoms'. The blunt remark referred to the authority of Elizabeth Woodville as queen and the power she must have anticipated within the new political climate left by Edward IV's sudden death [...] While the veracity of this scene is questionable*, the words attributed to the duke no doubt seemed plausible to Dominic Mancini who believed they exemplified the popular sentiment held by men [...]."

— Dominic Mancini, The Usurpation of Richard the Third / J.L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503 / Alexander R. Brondarbit, Power Brokers and the Yorkist State, 1461-1485

*One of Mancini's key sources seems to have been Edward V's own doctor, John Argentine, who attended to him in the Tower. It's very likely that he was the one who recounted this scene to Mancini, which suggests that it should probably be considered more credible than not.

[storywestistrash]

i am actually so tired of the way westerners treat eastern europeans

[momiji-kitsune]

[Image Description:

Five screenshots of social media posts about Judge Ana Reyes:

The first post is by Rebecca Solnit, which reads:

We know who the villains are in this coup. But so many heroes are showing up to oppose them, and many of them are federal employees, including judges. I live you supreme boss-hero champion Judge Ana Reyes, taking on the military's trans ban by telling Team Trump they don't know shit and are ridiculous and schooling them in the realities of gender, pronouns, chromosomes, and other stuff you might want to know before you decide to launch an attack and take it before the bench.

A screenshot of a court transcript about the military trans ban is attached to this post, which reads:

Judge Reyes: EO 14183 adopts the definitions of a seperate executive order called Defending Women from Gender Ideology, Extremism and Restoring biological Truth to the federal government. And that EO states, "sex shall refer to an individual's immutable biological classification as either male or female." And it states that, "It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female." Do you see that or do you remember that?

Jason C. Lynch: I will take the court's word for it.

Judge Reyes: You understand, as a matter of biology, it's just incorrect that there are only two sexes, right?

Jason C. Lynch: Do I understand that to be incorrect was a biological matter?

Judge Reyes: Yes. It is incorrect as a biological matter. You understand that, right?

Jason C. Lynch: I don't understand that to be incorrect.

Judge Reyes: You understand that not everyone has an xx or an xy chromosome, right?

Jason C. Lynch: Honestly, no, I don't.

Judge Reyes: It's actually kind of a really important point because this executive order is premised on an assertion that's not biologically correct. There are anywhere near about 30 different intersex examples. So someone who does not have just xx or xy chromosomes is not just male or female. They're intersex. And there are over 30 potential different intersex examples. We've got genetic differences. We have people with xxx chromosomes. We have androgen insensitivity, xy genetically, that may have female external sex characteristics and internally have testes. There's a five alpha reductase deficiency that causes changes in testosterone metabolism, xy that may have female external genitalia or ambiguous genitalia. The point being, and I'm happy to have you guys brief this more if you want, but I'm telling you right now that there are more people who are neither male or female. And so the premise of the executive order is just incorrect.

The second post is by Elizabeth Cronise McLaughlin (@/ecmclaughlin.bsky.social). It is a quote post of Chris Geidner's (@/chrisgeidner.bsky.social) post that reads:

"Every single pronoun in the history of mankind has been invented." - Reyes's response to this part of the EO: (b) The Secretary shall promptly issue directives for DoD to end invented and identification-based pronoun usage to best achieve the policy outlined in section 2 of this order.

McLaughlin's response to Geidner's post, written in all capitals, reads:

THANK YOU JUDGE REYES.

The third screenshot contains two posts by Chris Geidner. The first reads:

Reyes asks if there is a current discrimination against transgender people, and the most DOJ's Lynch will say is, "I am sure they can find an instance of discrimination."

Reyes ten reads a list of Trump administration actions against transgender people in its first month.

The second most reads:

Reyes goes off.

"You cannot tell me that transgender people are not being discriminated against." Of the Stonewall website deletion, Reyes says, "We are literally erasing their contributions to modern society. ... It screams animus."

The fourth screenshot is by Mueller, She Wrote (@/muellershewrote.bsky.social), which reads:

Another fiery exchange from Judge Reyes in the trans military case:

A screenshot of a section of the court transcript about the military trans ban is attached, and reads:

REYES: [The order] calls an entire category of people dishonest, dishonorable, undisciplined, immodest, who lack integrity, people who have taken an oath to defend this country, people who have been under fire, people who have received medals for taking fire for this country. I want to know from the government whether that language expresses 'animus'. Does that express animus?

DOJ ATTORNEY: Not in any constitutional —

REYES: In a commonsense way. This is a policy from the President of the United States affecting thousands of people ... to call an entire group of people lying, dishonest people who are undisciplined, immodest, and have no integrity. How is that anything other than showing animus?

DOJ ATTORNEY: I don't have an answer for you.

REYES: You do have an answer, you just don't want to give it...Poeple who make solid arguments as to why some or even most transgender people shouldn't be in the military ... We're dealing with unadulterated animus. We are dealing with the president of the United States dealing with a group of people serving their country ... calling them liars.

(Reyes then said she changed her courtroom orders to bar people who graduated from UVA law school from appearing before her because "they're all liars and lack integrity and are undisciplined and can't possibly meet the high rigours of being a lawyer for the government". She made the DOJ lawyer sit down on that basis then, after he did, she called him back up and asked whether that was a display of animus.)

The fifth screenshot is by Kyle Cheney (@/kyledcheney.bsky.social) that reads:

Quite an exchange here between Judge Reyes and DOJ attorney on how "pronoun usage" affects military readiness.

Attached to the post is a screenshot of the court transcript for the military trans ban, which reads:

REYES: Can we agree that the greatest fighting force ... is not going to be impacted in any way by less than 1 percent of the soldiers using a different pronoun than others might want to call them?

DOJ ATTORNEY: I can't agree with that here.

REYES: Would you agree with me that if you military is negatively impacted in any kind of way that matters ... We all have a lot bigger problems than pronoun use. We have a military that is incompetent. Any common sense rational human being knows that it doesn't.

It is pretext. It is frankly ridiculous. If you want to get me an officer of the U.S. military who is willing to get on the stand and say that because of pronoun usage the U.S. military is less prepared because of pronoun usage. I will be the first to give you a box of cigars.

/.End ID]

[hanzajesthanza]

i do actually headcanon that angoulême had some friends spread throughout beauclair & throughout the sansretour valley. but they weren’t good friends. just… “i know a guy” type of deals. very golan drosdeck type of random association like. you’re nineteen. how do you know all of these people. idk. it’s a small criminal underworld after all. but like drosdeck she would have debts with all of them and none of them would be willing to help her and some still are looking to scam her. and despite her… ‘worldliness’, she is still quite naïve

[hotsugarbyglassanimals]

i feel like this site leaning heavily into the "pedophilia and incest and rape kinks are good" angle lately can be attributed to the mass expulsion of sex workers and black ppl on here ngl

[twentyfivemiceinatrenchcoat]

thinking about that One scene in the secret history but w cult leader geto (<- having a normal one)

[secret--history]

I know that 'The Secret History is a satire' is an extremly prevalent take, and I think it came about as a response to the idea that tsh "romanticises" things like classist ideas/substance abuse/murder, but like. It can be unsupportive or critical of the characters without being a satire. Satire is not the word you're looking for here

[bucephaly]

watching someone's children is work, and people aren't entitled for asking to be paid for working. where did you get that idea /genq

I got that idea from actually learning about other cultures and breaking the hold western capitalist individualism had on my ideas of how the world works

I'm not saying put up a sign on the street saying free daycare, I'm saying that if someone trusts you enough to ask to watch their kids, that has the potential to be a great friendship if you like, actually help them out. I'm not saying never say no or that you are necessarily an asshole for asking to be paid, I'm saying that they aren't entitled or selfish for asking for help from people they trust.

I just don't get this modern entitlement and individualism where like, a friend confiding in you and seeking advice or a listening ear is seen as 'emotional labor' and shit like that. Like. Humans naturally want to help each other and it's so weird to me seeing people just refuse to like... be nice. It's about building community.

Children are raised communally in sooo many cultures and have been throughout most of history, the modern western idea of the nuclear family is so unhealthy for both parent and kid.

[coquetteladyofthedeadmensworld]

Yeah so we bring a Catholic vibe to the function and there's nothing y'all can do about it xxx!

It's just us and our Catholicism against the world

[fiapple]

Okay, you know that scene in Catwoman v.1 where Selina begs Maggie to scream, cry, lash out, & curse her rather than turn to a darker version of herself?

I need you to understand that, if it were written with any sense of integrity, that would be the attitude Bruce has towards Jason post-resurrection. At least after becoming privy to the fact that Jason does not personally blame Bruce for his death.

In my opinion, Bruce would sell his arm for a penny on a streetcorner providing it gave Jason non-homicidal means of coping, for Jason to view him as responsible, as a second murderer. For him to curse "hereoism", & vigilantes, & the whole fucking lifestyle- decry it as an unbelievable farce & leave it all behind to go back to being Jason Todd of Crime Alley, who only did what he had to do to survive. Bruce would be so far beyond willing to carry that weight if it meant his boy would be off the track of his homicidally self-destructive rampage. If it meant Jason realizing he is more than just a revenant, that he is alive, that he can have a life.

The only way it makes any sense to me is if Bruce would accept, even embrace a world in which Jason views him as a horrible dad, an irredeemable piece of shit who is directly responsible for his murder, if it just meant that Jason did not have to utterly sacrafice his sense of humanity & compassion to make it through the world. He'd give near anything for it or it makes no sense. That's his son. His son who was dead but is now alive, for all he does not seem to grasp that himself.

Also he should have let Jason pop the clown. Not even for ethical reasons, but in the chase of giving Jason a chance at the realization in the world they do live in where Jason will not allow himself to view Bruce that way. Because he refuses to harm his son, or let him be taken in another explosion. Not when he just got him back, not when his son has not even gotten the chance to truly come back to life.

(I also think it would be a far more interesting jumping-off point post-utrh for Jason, but that's somewhat besides the point.)

[lord-squiggletits]

I need to reread the comics again to have specific arguments/evidence for this, but like

I feel a bit like I could've been sympathetic to the way other Cybertronian colonies view Cybertron, if it weren't for the fact that at least several of them (as in, ones that get notable dialogue/screen time) are so low-key self-righteous?

Like, idk... there's a lot of criticism of Cybertronians because they're so "warlike" and how their obsession with violence and vengeance is just dragging the whole galaxy down with them, but uh. The Autobot-Decepticon war was basically a product of societal ills bubbling over for like 6 million years beforehand and then finally boiling over into a 4 million year war that lasted as long as it did because the people involved had immense social/psychological trauma from being "raised" in an oppressive society.

So when the colonists come in being all 'omg you people are so violent and uncivilized why don't you just like, stop fighting' it kind of pissed me off a little bit as a reader/person like. Idk the colonists really came into this society of people full of massive amounts of trauma where even before the war society was super oppressive and no one has any experience of living "normal" lives unaffected by violence and bigotry. And the colonists were like "ummm wow why don't you guys just??? stop fighting???." Like idk it wasn't EVERY SINGLE MOMENT, in fact I think that when it was played for laughs it's quite a funny "fridge horror" type element. It was just annoying because like.... IDK???? It's just really annoying to watch a bunch of people who lived relatively sheltered lives on their own planets come to a different planet full of traumatized people and be like "omg why are you people so fucked up" IDK BRO MAYBE BECAUSE THEIR SOCIETY WAS OPPRESSIVE AND THEY LIVED THROUGH A LIFELONG WAR???

It also doesn't help that the colonies were literally founded based on imperialism and conquest so like, it's fucking rich to hear colonists scolding Cybertronians for their violence ruining the whole galaxy while literally sitting on planets that their Primes colonized from others. The hypocrisy of this is briefly mentioned in Unicron (literally the FINAL STORY OF THE SERIES) but like, that's basically the only time Cybertronian characters are given a reprieve of sympathy from other characters in universe and it's so tiresome.

I've talked to other people who didn't like the colonists and thought they basically (narratively speaking) existed just to shit on the existing characters, and it's actually really easy for me to sympathize with/outright agree with that assessment of the story considering how much of exRID/OP seems to be preoccupied with "Cybertron/the Primes/Optimus sucks" with very few reprieves for anything positive happening and even fewer chances for characters to get to explain themselves and experience a little bit of justice? Like, as the audience, it's just very frustrating to see the characters you spent hundreds of issues keeping up with get shit on by a bunch of "literally-who"s and then not really get a chance to ever defend themselves, either by literally defending themselves in conversation or having some sort of narrative thing happening that vindicates them at least symbolically

[wonder-worker]

Any judgement on [Richard III's] reign has to be seen as provisional. The critic of the reign only has to consider how the Tudors would now be regarded if Henry VII lost at Stoke, to realize the dangers of too many assumptions about the intractability of Richard’s problems. But it would be equally unrealistic to ignore Richard’s unpopularity altogether. The fact that he generated opposition among men with little material reason for dissent, and that the disaffection then continued to spread among his own associates, says something about what contemporaries regarded as the acceptable parameters of political behaviour. There is no doubt that Richard’s deposition of his nephews was profoundly shocking. To anyone who did not accept the pre-contract story, which was probably the majority of observers, the usurpation was an act of disloyalty. Gloucester, both as uncle and protector, was bound to uphold his nephew’s interests and his failure to do so was dishonourable. Of all medieval depositions, it was the only one which, with whatever justification, could most easily be seen as an act of naked self-aggrandizement.

It was also the first pre-emptive deposition in English history. This raised enormous problems. Deposition was always a last resort, even when it could be justified by the manifest failings of a corrupt or ineffective regime. How could one sanction its use as a first resort, to remove a king who had not only not done [nothing] wrong but had not yet done anything at all?

-Rosemary Horrox, Richard III: A Study of Service