#(not that I advocate violence)

[frodo-a-gogo]

Let us be brutally honest with ourselves and with eachother for a moment. If he weren't obese you motherfuckers would be capable of percieving evrart claires sexy sexy moral ambiguity and complex charms

[lestats-ovaries]

okay but can we please acknowledge tommy claiming he doesn't have daddy issues in the same breath as "captain gerrard is like the dad I did have" like sir there's no way you, a gay man, came out of that unscathed

[hedgehog-moss]

I've received some absolutely deranged anons since reblogging that post saying celebrating mass slaughter of civilians is fucked up no matter what. One ask saying "wtf are you talking about, no one is celebrating anything, people think Israel is the victim as always" was sandwiched between two other asks, one cheering for genocide, one confused and uncertain as to whether or not going house to house slaughtering entire families is always a bad thing. Not using the word genocide lightly btw, the first ask was like "death to colonizers, all colonizers should die, there are no civilians in Israel, the death toll should have been higher." Another ask was 3 paragraphs that amounted to a clearly satisfied "reap what you sow." What did the murdered babies sow exactly? Or the abducted grandma who was a lifelong peace activist, who regularly drove people from Gaza to Jerusalem for medical care? I've seen lots of such comments in the notes of one post the other day, bonkers levels of dehumanising antisemitism, which was what prompted me to reblog a post by someone with a moral compass.

For a lot of progressive social media 'activists' the question of whether or not to condemn child murder is a really complex moral dilemma when it's being done by the right oppressed group or, let's be honest, if it's Jewish children being murdered for a good cause. It's repulsive. The idea that you can "side" with the children trapped in Gaza subjected to war crimes by hesitating to condemn war crimes against children on the other side is repulsive. The adults at that music festival and in surrounding villages didn't deserve to be massacred either but it's hard not to keep focusing on the children in the process of desperately trying to find a line in the sand with people who claim to care about justice. I wasn't going to make any more posts because the last thing social media needs is more unaffected people giving their 2 cents on this topic, but yeah I'll just say, if your moral stance is that being oppressed and persecuted long enough gives you the right to fight for your land at any cost, including costs borne by innocent children, then you are ideologically aligned with Israel's current government. Not everything is justifiable if done by / to the "right" people in the "right" circumstances. Look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself what absolute (not relativistic, not contingent on context, incentives, or purpose) moral values you hold—any at all—if you can't draw a line in the sand with "rape" and "child murder" always on the other side of it.

[nobody-did-nothing-wrong]

Has anyone else noticed that Ares lines in God Games mirror a lot of Eurylochus doubts throughout the earlier sagas? Especially the line about Scylla, and how it follows Aphrodite’s calling him a coward for spiting the Cyclopes. I just think it’s an interesting series of events. And it does stay tonally consistent - he’s a warrior of the mind. The important thing is looking at a situation and deciding the best course of action based on intelligence, not just killing everything in sight OR being motivated exclusively by lust/love. It’s a fun comparison between Ody/Athena and Eurylocus/Ares.

[frogs-in3-hills]

the main appeal of royai i think is that riza hawkeye is a woman who will point her gun at just about anyone’s head with very little provocation, and it’s only natural to think about that in conjunction with her trying to function in a romantic relationship with the number one guy most deserving of regularly having a gun pointed at his head

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

Anti-(((Zionists))) in the West continuing to be the best advocates for Zionism that Israel could ever hope for.

[mezmer]

Unnmnpopular opinion for whatever reason. In feminist circles women will comment on men's appearances or wish and hope that they would die. I am off put by this. Sure, kill violent men who are beyond repair and pedophiles okay I'm on board. A reddit screenshot about a guy being a douchebag? He does no chores and cheated on his wife? "I hope he dies" "probably an ugly neck beard" ok. You are being no better than a misogynist. I just don't agree with it.

You can keep your mouth shut when anger consumes you without coming across as a doormat. It's actually very progressive. I feel it's often an individual who is yearning to shed the womanly doormat stereotype and show her anger in all the wrong ways. You can come for a man's hygiene and pathetic behaviors without wishing death on them. It doesn't make you less of a feminist or even a misandrist to be above those behaviors. It creates a more rotten world to perpetrate anger and unleash it needlessly. Shouldn't be normalized except in cases of democratic justice.

[ilynpilled]

i can fully understand the gripes with certain misogynistic tropes/writing issues that are present in the execution of some of cersei’s writing, but i will never understand the “she should have a redemption arc” or “she should be more likeable/less morally dark” perspective. that is not what her character is or has to be to make it great. wanting more female anti-heroes or “redemption arcs” with moral greyness and complexity of the level that asoiaf gives to primarily male characters is entirely understandable, but do some of you people even like cersei as a character, like at its core? like this is not about criticising the execution of certain things when it comes to this character, this is about taking issue with her as a villain fundamentally, which i just do not agree with at all

[smelly-fozzy]

as if the military doesn’t release adds that look like fucking video games. As if the military doesn’t depend and prey on people’s need for a higher education just to secure a somewhat better paying job, by handing out scholarships to anyone who joins. As if the military doesn’t come into our schools, and quite literally try to indoctrinate minors- Y’know the people who you claim you’re trying to protect.

[is-the-fire-real]

'Reminder that "punch a nazi uwu" leftists utilize Nazi rhetoric to justify punching Jews.

It was never about punching Nazis; it was about getting social permission to punch.'

It was this very mentality that drove me away from considering myself a liberal anymore (I AM VERY MUCH LEFT LEANING, I DIDN'T DECIDE TO BECOME CONSERVATIVE JUST TO BE CLEAR. I just don't feel like those spaces have any intrinsic safety any longer). It feels like so much of western leftism has become about "punching up". I don't think it's about compassion or concern anymore, it's about finding the "right" targets. And so often that was just used as a way to excuse bigotry. I'm a goy but I noticed this on a personal level plenty with people identifying as feminists, they'd be perfectly okay saying something unquestionably sexist, as long as "white women" was attached onto the front. It's very much the same with shaming people over physical features that others may have, as long as the individual person is "bad enough" it doesn't matter if wide foreheads or big noses or acne are features many people have and would feel hurt by seeing them used as an insult, because they're only "really" directing it at "one of the bad ones"

So, I'm going to link to this piece again because it's been embarrassingly useful, and explains why I say things like "pretending to believe" despite their clunkiness. For new material, I hope you don't mind that you have accidentally triggered a massive unskippable cutscene, but you tapped into a few things I have been pondering and I'd like to take advantage of your observances to add my own.

Part of what you're discussing here, which I agree with, is that toxic slacktivists pretend to believe that they are Good People Doing Good Work. They are Bad People and their work is Bad Work, but if they all get in a group and pretend together that it's Good, then that's almost the same as being Good, right?

Another worthwhile aspect of what you're discussing is something I became aware of in the aftermath of the collapse of Occupy Wall Street. One commenter on a liberal blog I still follow lamented that mass protest never seems to accomplish anything, and how the millions of people who turned out for OWS protests should have affected more political change. Considering most of them could also vote, write to representatives, etc., something other than littering and arrests could've been done.

Another commenter pointed out that he had personally been at most of the anti-Iraq War protests, including the largest worldwide protest on 15 February 2003 (6-10 million estimated participants). But most of those protesters did not agree with each other. There were at least four major coalitions of antiwar protesters showing up then and thereafter. The ones he listed were:

"Just war" advocates who believed the Iraq War was unjust.

Total pacifists who believed all armed conflicts are unjust, and therefore the Iraq War is as well.

Right-wing bigots who believed a war might potentially benefit those they thought of as religiously or ethnically inferior and subhuman.

Xenophobes, both left- and right-wing, who believed "the US can't be the police of the world" and that any action taken outside USian borders was immoral.

Imagine four people with these beliefs in a room talking about the Iraq War... then bring up the war in Ukraine to them and see how fast the coalition falls apart.

"Well, the war for Ukrainian liberation is a just war," says the just-war advocate. The pacifist starts to scream "HOW COULD YOU DEFEND ANY ACTION THAT MIGHT LEAD TO CHILDREN DYING, YOU MONSTER!". The right-wing bigot says they support the war, too--on the side of the ethnically and religiously superior Russians. And then a left-wing xenophobe says we're wasting money that should be supporting American workers and uplifting Americans out of poverty instead of buying new bombs for Ukraine.

And your "antiwar" coalition collapses, with the pacifist wandering off to agree with the xenophobe while the just-war liberal and the right-wing bigot scream at each other pointlessly and without resolution.

This is one of the wisest breakdowns of human behavior I have ever discovered:

Any coalition of people is made up of many sub-coalitions who only temporarily agree on a single aspect of a single issue. Making sure the group does not collapse prematurely is the true, unsung labor of movement maintenance.

To be real, it's much easier to let one's coalition collapse and scream about how The Menz, or The CIA, or Greedy Capitalists, or The Jews artificially forced your group's collapse than it is to admit that one might just suck a big one at coalition building. This is especially true among leftists, who are sometimes anti-hierarchy and frequently fall for populist, anti-expert nonsense. Having a leader means you're suggesting someone should have authority, and a lot of leftists are allergic to that suggestion.

Moreover, though, a lot of "leftists" are "leftists" but only agree with one or two aspects of leftism.

To use your feminism example: I have absolutely seen feminists who think they can be misogynists so long as they say "white" before they say "woman". I mean, who can even argue? I have also seen feminists who think they can be gender bioessentialists so long as they're doing it towards "men" (a category which includes a lot of people who neither look like men, nor live as men, nor benefit from male privilege). I have seen feminists who think they can call themselves "trans allies" while consistently ignoring, degrading, and dismissing the concerns of anyone who isn't a binary trans woman. Etc.

The thing is, they are all feminists. What makes someone a feminist, at bottom, is the acceptance of and opposition to patriarchy. That's it. It's similar to how what makes a person a Protestant Christian is the acceptance of Jesus as their Lord and Savior--you might need to do one or two things to be considered a part of a specific branch of Christianity, but all you need is that one specific belief about that one specific idea. There's a lot of bunk about how "you can't be a REAL Christian unless you do X" just like there's bunk about how "you can't be a REAL feminist unless you do Y", and it's all bunk.

There are people who might be really bad feminists or Christians, but that's not the same as not being feminists or Christians.

So, the coalition of leftism has several sub-coalitions who actually despise each other. Here is my proposal for the sub-coalitions. (Please keep in mind that I am not defining groups by how they define themselves, but by the far more useful metric of their actions.)

Liberals who agree with leftist economic thought, but strongly disagree with leftist conclusions regarding violent revolution. Liberals do not have time for online arguments and superficial action. They are generally participating in protests, running for office, writing postcards to advocate for candidates, informing voters, and working within the system for positive change that alleviates suffering. They are pro-expert but opposed to a vanguard party due to its inherent authoritarianism.

Tankies, whose primary interest in leftism is authoritarian. They oppose capitalism and support violent revolution because they imagine themselves as the vanguard party who gets to control everything when the revolution comes.

Anarchists, whose primary interest is opposing hierarchy. They want to burn down the system because it is a system, and frequently become angry and defensive if you try to ask them any questions about what would be built out of the ashes.

Progressives, whose primary interest is opposing liberals. They also oppose capitalism; they are, like tankies, positioning themselves as the vanguard party because they are already in political power. What makes them Not Tankies is that they care more about sticking it to "the Dems" than they do about actually being the vanguard, opposing capitalism, or achieving anything of worth or meaning politically.

"Red fash", who used to be called "beefsteak Nazis". They say all the right things regarding violent revolution and economics/capitalism, but they only believe what they believe for the sake of their specific ethnic group and nation (frequently, white and USian, but this is extremely popular in Europe too). IOW a red fash wants the vanguard party to only have whites of a specific ethnicity in control of the revolution; they only want universal health care for "their" people, that sort of thing. Some red fash are actual Nazis cosplaying as leftists, but some are just really, really, REALLY bigoted leftists.

Whether we like it or note, the acceptance of armed, violent revolution as a Good Thing means that leftism has always regarded punching up and violence as a necessary component of leftist thought. This is not a perversion of Real Leftism. This is leftism. If you think revolution is good and necessary instead of a terrifying possibility, then you also think punching up is okay; it's just a matter of who is Up and who gets to punch.

Of the five sub-coalitions I described, only one has rejected violent revolution--and it's the one all the other leftists accuse of being right-wing. And interestingly enough, only liberals are habitually accused of secretly colluding with the right... when red fash are natural allies to the right, and when all other forms of leftists openly ally with right-wingers so long as they say the right things about economics. (See under: "After Hitler, us" leftists, left-wing Trumpistas who think they'll rule the ashes after Trump burns down the current system.)

And if you believe in violent revolution, then (let me be facetious for a second) what's the problem with making fun of your political enemies for being ugly? If we believe Steve Bannon is a Nazi, aren't we obligated to stop him by any means necessary, and doesn't that include mocking him for his alcoholism? Isn't mocking someone for their appearance and intrinsic characteristics mild compared to, say, threatening them with exploding cars covered with hammers? Or retweeting pictures of pitchforks and guillotines?

If we believe Ben Shapiro is an opponent to the revolution we accept is necessary and vital to the movement, then what's a little antisemitism in the name of the people? Don't we have to be bigots to oppose bigots? And--

--oh. There's that horseshoe bending round to the right again.

[minty-mumbles]

I think every Zelda should unironically get to beat someone up at least once

[sharvariq]

i hate the way the game pushes you to romance north despite her and markus having no romantic chemistry whatsoever, and i absolutely despise the "act natural" scene in capitol park where acting natural according to david cage is non-consensually kissing a woman?? it's so icky, they did my boy markus so wrong in that one.

as much as i don't agree with the majority of north's opinions and i think she's severely underdeveloped as a character who deserved to be more multidimensional, i also don't want to be an asshole to her. i'm ready to do that though if being considerate and empathetic ends in her and markus having a random fling in the middle of an android uprising

[anarchonist]

I really need liberals and other non-violence advocates to understand the main problem with their position on non-violence: proclaiming that you're never going to resort to violence is an invitation for violent people to escalate their violence against you or the people you claim to defend.

Moralizing people for not being 100 % openly and proudly anti-violence is not only a tone-deaf, but an actively dangerous thing to do. A person might in their heart of hearts be fully against violence of any kind, but by trying to get them to openly assume a hard pacifist stance in order to claim some intangible moral high ground, you are putting them in a dangerous position: now fascists and bullies will assume that the person is an easy target.

It's a tough pill to swallow for the "marketplace of ideas" crowd, but people don't always treat you the same way you treat them. You assume that if you openly declare your intention to not resort to violence under any circumstances, your opponent will automatically respect that - or if they don't, there will be some kind of consequence from above. From authorities, from the public, hell, from God himself. But that isn't a given. What you're doing is throwing yourself at the opponent's mercy and telling them to do whatever they like. You're assuming a lot about their humanity, which might not even exist.

And that's what this is about. When I keep saying that violence is the only language fascists and bullies understand, it isn't out of some deep immoral desire to hurt people and just trying to find "acceptable targets". It's not even always about the violence against fascists itself. It's about keeping that threat looming, keeping the people who would like nothing more than to hurt you guessing: "If I start escalating violence against this person, will they fight back? Perhaps I shouldn't risk it, I could get hurt. And violence is only fun when it's one-sided in my favor."

Violence is ugly. Violence is brutal. Violence causes damage that may never heal. You maybe shouldn't find violence in itself fun - if you do, then you might be close to the kind of person who's just looking for an acceptable target (like fascists are) - but violence is sometimes necessary. And since fascists, like all bullies, are cowards, even the slightest chance that they might get hurt themselves might deter them, might keep them from more violence.

So no, proclamations of non-violence do not help in deescalating violence, they do the opposite. They are an incredibly dangerous thing to do when confronted with violent fascists who would like nothing better than having a non-resistant punching bag. You do not even always have to openly assume a pro-violence stance, sometimes simply keeping the bully in the dark about whether or not you're going to fight back might make them hesitate.

[shimenchus]

it's so telling when someone says radical feminism is "white woman shit" and you bring up the fact that in many places such as africa or asia, the only feminism that prominently exists is radical feminism, and for those places it's just considered regular feminism that you get told those women live in places that aren't progressive enough for them to understand their actions properly. to say these women are too dumb to realize that their beliefs are "bad" simply because they don't align with western mainstream liberal feminism is rooted in xenophobia and racism, not to mention a lack of understanding of the struggles and violence women from these countries regularly go through, which can range anywhere from fgm to men rubbing and wiping their cum on the back of women's clothes in trains. but of course, as usual, there's no intelligent response to this so you just end up getting blocked or get rape wished on you.

[sappho-favourite-pupil]

Stop advocating for violence

I will make sure you're not in it when i decide to blow up your car, don't worry 😘

[bookwyrminspiration]

woof🐕

I can't even look at you right now you make me sick. i will see that dog dead if its the last thing I do