#Misled Children

[badgirlcoven-official]

Thinking about the takes I've seen that act like the Collector is a badly written character because he has a "complete personality shift" between King's Tide and For The Future and it makes me a little crazy cause it's just like... That is quite literally the point just cause you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad writing.

I think it's really well done that we saw the Collector as this intimidating and vengeful figure BECAUSE we only ever saw them from the perspective of people who were either afraid of him or manipulating him and then once we see him from a new perspective it becomes clearer that not only is this a scared child but also that this is an innocent kid who literally just wants to feel accepted and to goof around like yeah we got Belos' propaganda that the Collector was a terrifying/manipulative powerful god-like thing that's only motivated by their own needs and we sort of fell for it just because the other characters all did, they had no reason not to in the context of what they saw

Then we see them from a new perspective and the crux of his character is revealed and we see things from HIS perspective and it doesn't change his actions or what he's said but it recontextualizes what we've seen and heard from them before this point.

Like no the shift in how the Collector is portrayed was done very well imo it's just not done super obviously

[spacerockfloater]

Alicent and Criston have every right to be together.

I’ve read a lot of posts regarding their non-existent hypocrisy and I’d like to clear some things up.

First and foremost, stop using Alicent’s “Where is duty, where is sacrifice?” line against her or Nyra’s outrageous “Exhausting, wasn’t it?” speech because you think you’re eating when you’re, in fact, starving. Alicent has done her duty and sacrificed herself. It’s the only thing she’s been doing for the past 20 years. She gave the man she was forced to marry four children and she took care of him despite all the shit he put her through. She has lived all her life based on her principles and now her husband is gone. She mourned him, she buried him, it’s been more than 10 days since his death (confirmed that E1 S2 takes place 10 days after Lucerys’ death) and she is finally fucking free. She deserves a sliver of comfort. Alicent is the only one in this series that’s been faithful and dutiful to a T, yet look where that got her. If someone has the right to break the law a little bit, it’s definitely her.

That being said, I don’t know when it was decided that Alicent is a pious saint that can do no wrong, but I need to remind y’all that following a religion does not magically prevent you from sinning. Is she committing fornication? Obviously. However, you are all under this impression that this is hypocritical on her behalf because she berated Rhaenyra for it when they were younger, without considering that her anger was justified for a myriad of other reasons, such as (but not limited to): 1) the fact that Rhaenyra’s freedom to marry whomever she pleased was a privilege granted to her thanks to Alicent’s efforts, who supported her even if Rhaenyra hated her, yet her friend casually threw that away, 2) the fact that Rhaenyra lied to her by swearing on her morher’s grave and never even mentioned Criston, 3) the fact that Rhaenyra had the guts to call her “sister” while lying to her face, 4) the fact that her lies resulted in Otto getting fired since Rhaenyra misled Alicent so that she speaks to Viserys in favour of her friend and betraying her own father by siding against him (a decision she wouldn’t have made if she knew the truth), leaving her completely alone and friendless at court, even if he was right all along and finally 5) the fact that Rhaenyra is the most sought after bachelorette in the whole world and by having sex she undermines herself (Rhaenyra knows this well, hence why she denies these accusations) and literally endangers herself, because had she been married to any other man but Laenor and had this man found out his wife and future queen is not a virgin, imagine the fucking horrors she could have been subjected to. Like, I hate to break it to you, but a 40-year-old widow, who’s had four kids and has completed her duty to the point where she is actually no longer needed and could leave the palace to go live the rest of her life in peace somewhere else and no one would notice her absence (literally though, she has birthed heirs, her husband is dead, her son is a grown adult king, her job is done there), having sex, is not the same as an 18-year-old princess and future heir in her prime, whose purity is linked to her worth, getting caught drunk in a brothel, hooking up with her uncle and losing her virginity to her guard, all in one night. Viserys himself was outraged. There’s lows and then there’s lows, y’all.

By the way, the crazy assumptions that Alicent has been cheating on Viserys with Criston for a while now need to stop. When Olivia Cooke said that they had filmed a messy sex scene with Fabien Frankel in a recent interview, she never said this was for S1 of HOTD. I don’t know where y’all got that from, but even if it was true, that scene has been scrapped so it is not canon. And don’t make me laugh about Daeron, a dragon rider who canonically has Valyrian features, potentially having brown hair. You’re all so blinded by your hatred for Alicent that you want her to be a lying hypocrite in order to make yourselves feel better about Rhaenyra’s mishaps, that you don’t get that the whole point of her and Criston getting physical is that she is a tortured woman who is finally able to break free, not that she has been a hypocrite all along. You’re heavily misunderstanding her arc.

Finally, when it comes to my good man Criston, y’all have lost it completely. No, Alicent is not raping him, unless he tells her to stop and she closes the door behind her like Rhaenyra did that is. No, Criston did not lie about how important his honour is to him. There’s a whole article on how Clare Kilner, the director of E4 S1, decided that Cole removing his armour slowly was necessary because it symbolises his inner conflict and uncertainty over breaking his vow: should he soil his cloak for the sake of the woman he loves? And he does soil it, because he thinks she loves him back. But that honourable man dies the day Rhaenyra tells him that he’ll never be anything more than a side piece to her. This man stops giving a flying fuck about his honour, oath, position and life. He is trying to kill himself. And you know what stops him? Alicent. Alicent is the only thing between him and death, the only person to show him kindness and understanding, to pull him up from the lowest point in his life. I don’t think you heard Alicent in E7 S1: “No, you’re sworn to me!”. Y’all. His life is hers. He doesn’t care about Rhaenyra, his job, Viserys, anyone else at this point. Only Alicent exists in his mind, Fabien himself has said time and time again that his loyalty to her is unwavering. He only exists for Alicent’s sake. He’s who you wish Daemon was. Crying that “Criston is a bad knight and a liar because he broke his chastity oath yet again!” is so pointless because that knight has been dead since Rhaenyra’s marriage to Laenor. What does an oath mean when you find out the people you swore it to have betrayed you? Why should he keep his promise to the people who abused him?

[allthecanadianpolitics]

In a packed room at the Powell River Public Library, Frances Widdowson is warning about “wokeism.” She accuses two city councillors of destroying democracy in the town, proclaims that trans people don’t actually exist and complains that no one except linguists knows how to pronounce Indigenous names.

Widdowson is a contributor to a book called Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools) that calls into question whether graves of Indigenous children actually have been found at residential schools.

The book makes the incorrect claim that survivors’ stories about residential schools are “either totally false or grossly exaggerated.” The schools were federal institutions that Indigenous children were forced to attend, separated from their families and culture. Children were abused and died at high rates as a result of overcrowding, malnutrition and disease.

Widdowson is a former professor in the department of economics, justice and policy studies at Mount Royal University in Calgary.

She was fired in 2022, in part because of her comments praising the educational value of residential school. She is challenging her firing. [...]

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland, @vague-humanoid

Notes from the poster @el-shab-hussein: this filth is what was teaching economics and justice courses in a University.

[yenneferdivengerberg]

"When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone."

"Stars don't fall for men. But the comet means one thing, boy. Dragons."

"No one ever looked for a girl..It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. Rhaegar, I thought … the smoke was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died. He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King’s Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar Targaryen was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet. What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years. Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke. The dragons prove it."

“When the fire died at last and the ground became cool enough to walk upon, Ser Jorah Mormont found her amidst the ashes, surrounded by blackened logs and bits of glowing ember and the burnt bones of man and woman and stallion. She was naked, covered with soot, her clothes turned to ash, her beautiful hair all crisped away… yet she was unhurt. The cream-and-gold dragon was suckling at her left breast, the green-and-bronze at the right. Her arms cradled them close. The black-and-scarlet beast was draped across her shoulders, its long sinuous neck coiled under her chin. When it saw Jorah, it raised its head and looked at him with eyes as red as coals. Wordless, the knight fell to his knees. The men of her khas came up behind him. Jhogo was the first to lay his arakh at her feet. “Blood of my Blood,” he murmured, pushing his face to the smoking earth. “Blood of my Blood,” she heard Aggo echo. “Blood of my Blood,” Rakharo shouted. And after them came her handmaids, and then the others, all the Dothraki, men and women and children, and Dany had only to look at their eyes to know that they were hers now, today and tomorrow and forever, hers as they had never been Drogo’s. As Daenerys Targaryen rose to her feet, her black hissed, pale smoke venting from its mouth and nostrils. The other two pulled away from her breasts and added their voices to the call, translucent wings unfolding and stirring the air, and for the first time in hundreds of years, the night came alive with the music of dragons.”

[intersex-animal]

Press contact: Maddie Moran, Director of Communications. maddie@interactadvocates.org 

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has released its final rule on the nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act, making clear that discrimination against intersex people within federally funded health programs is prohibited. Under the rule, sex discrimination is defined to explicitly include “discrimination on the basis of sex characteristics, including intersex traits,” as well as sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy and related conditions, and sex stereotypes. 

Forms of discrimination falling within the scope of the ACA that intersex people commonly face include:

Denial of healthcare services such as preventive screenings, hormone therapies, or fertility assistance because of a patient’s intersex traits or because of a provider’s reliance on binary sex stereotypes. 

Repeated and unnecessary questions about an intersex patient’s anatomy or medical history not relevant to their care.

Denial of insurance coverage for necessary care based on a person’s intersex traits.

Performance of genital and sterilizing surgeries on intersex infants when these procedures would not be considered but for the presence of the patient’s variation in sex characteristics.

Intersex infants and toddlers are often subjected to medically unnecessary “normalizing” surgeries that change genital appearance or remove gonads – which often amounts to sterilization – in order to impose conformity with stereotypes about male or female bodies. Today’s rule clarifies that “requiring persons to conform to stereotypical notions of sex and gender” is itself a form of sex discrimination, extending protections both to intersex children and to adult patients who face routine medical mistreatment.

HHS first announced it would interpret Section 1557 of the ACA to prohibit anti-intersex discrimination in the preamble to the 2016 rule, yet the 2020 revisions to the rule jeopardized its proper application to transgender and intersex patients. Today’s final rule restores clarity regarding the proper scope of these protections, solidifying the inclusion of intersex individuals in the regulatory text itself. OCR justified the application of Section 1557’s nondiscrimination provisions to intersex patients, stating that “[d]iscrimination on the basis of sex characteristics, including intersex variations, is a prohibited form of sex discrimination because discrimination based on anatomical or physiological sex characteristics is inherently sex-based.” 

interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth celebrates this as a civil rights victory for all LGBTQI+ people, including the many children with variations in their sex characteristics who are vulnerable to discrimination and harm in medical settings. 

“We deeply appreciate the administration’s affirmation of intersex people’s civil rights,” says interACT’s Executive Director Erika Lorshbough. “People with intersex traits can experience various forms of discrimination in healthcare settings, from harassment and mistreatment to outright denial of care. Intersex adults can be misled by doctors about the existence or nature of their own intersex characteristics, and young children are too often subjected to unnecessary, nonconsensual genital surgeries because of bias against their sex trait variations. This rule stands for the basic principle that intersex people must be able to access care free from discrimination—a substantial step toward a future where a person’s intersex traits are never a basis to treat them with anything less than the dignity and respect we all deserve.”

Nondiscrimination protections are especially urgent for LGBTQI+ people in this perilous moment, as states have enacted new, discriminatory laws targeting these communities. Among these draconian measures, state bans on gender-affirming care compound injustice by specifically exempting the nonconsensual surgeries that harm young intersex children. interACT eagerly anticipates the enforcement of federal protections to address the continued practice of discriminatorily imposing unwanted interventions on intersex youth on the basis of their sex characteristics. 

interACT encourages anyone who faces discrimination in health care based on their sex characteristics to file a complaint with HHS or the relevant federal civil rights office. Intersex patients can also file a complaint with HHS for violations of their right to privacy of, and access to, their own health records. Intersex people can also file a federal complaint for discrimination in other areas such education, employment, housing, or programs funded by the Department of Justice.

[astraystayyh]

We recently learned in our media class about the four indicators that reveal a country's use of propaganda to justify its actions/build a national and international consensus over its stance. This is exactly what Israel is doing now. Please read this to learn more about the Israeli propaganda (with sources) :

i. Establishing a distinct "us" versus "them"/"the others" divide: The Israeli media has been actively engaged in crafting a narrative that portrays Palestinians as sub-humans and animals, that deserve to be killed, butchered, and deprived of essential resources such as water, electricity and fuel. This dehumanizing narrative serves to rationalize the grave atrocities committed against Palestinians, reducing them to mere statistics, rather than acknowledging them as fellow human beings who have the right to be protected as well.

A recent example of this dehumanization (that encompasses children as well) is Israel's Prime Minister's words in a now-deleted tweet, on Oct 16, stating: "This is a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle."

This is also a common practice in Western media as a whole. In the context of conflict, the choice of words plays a significant role: Israelis are often described as "killed," and Palestinians are referred to as having "died" (example of BBC). The distinction can be seen as a way to omit Israeli responsibility, portraying the deaths of nearly 10,000 Palestinians as a result of circumstances beyond its control, rather than the outcome of deliberate and targeted actions.

ii. Use of emotion instead of logic: a stark example would be the whole international outrage that was first sparked due to the false claim that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. This fake news was confidently shared by U.S. President Joe Biden, who later admitted that he had never actually seen any pictures of such events, neither did anyone in the IDF because there was never any instance of 40 beheaded babies (source) (also trust me if Israel did have any pictures of killed children they would not hesitate to share it)

CNN journalist who first shared this fake news has later apologized for being "misled." (which isn't the case that was a conscious choice of the news agency but that's another conversation)

Israel knew what it was doing by sharing this particular false information, they knew that the simple imagery of such a horrifying notion, even without concrete proof, would be a strategic tool to garner international support through emotional manipulation.

They are still trying to use emotion when it comes to children particularly to sway the public opinion : Israeli government spokesman has shared images of "fallen teeth of burnt children." This post has been debunked by dentists, pointing out many contradictions in the pics that conclude that these are props and not the teeth of actual children found in rubbles. (source)

(Meanwhile, there are factual documented videos and pictures of dead Palestinian kids and babies, decapitated, injured beyond belief, tangible proof of the war crimes Israel commits and yet the public outrage isn't the same, because Israel has already established that Palestinians are lesser people)

iii. Attempting to Influence Both Elites and Ordinary Citizens: In addition to their efforts to secure international support from world leaders, Israel has employed a multifaceted approach by spreading advertisements that regular civilians view. These ads serve to rationalize their actions, and they are strategically placed ahead of unrelated programming, including children's shows or games.

This tactic aims to integrate their ideology into various aspects of our lives, in order to promote their agenda and inundate us with recurrent pro-Israel messages. This strategy capitalizes on the psychological principle that the mind tends to retain information it encounters most frequently. (a more detailed video explanation)

iv. media manipulation tactics : For example, the night before Israel bombed the Baptist hospital in Gaza killing more than 1000 people, BBC published an article with the headline "Does Hamas build tunnels under schools and hospitals?" giving way to a "justification" for the heinous, war crime act that is bombing a hospital, under the guise of targeting Hamas hidden bases.

The use of the Israel-Gaza war as a headline for the news leads us to believe that this is a war with two equal (or slightly disproportionate) parties who are both able to defend themselves. Whereas this is a genocide led by Israel (a powerful military with international backing by the world's most powerful nations- U.S, U.K, France, Germany.. to cite a few) and CIVILIANS. Because those are the people that Israel is targeting, by bombing hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, refugee camps.

It is a genocide, an ethnical cleansing, an attempt to eradicate entire families, then to relocate the survivors out of Gaza, making it impossible for them to reclaim their land, and resulting in a total takeover of Palestine by Israel.

Another manipulation example (because there are so many) is the first and most prominent question that many Western journalists ask their guests: "Do you condemn the attacks of Hamas on Oct 7?"

This question completely disregards the root of this entire conflict, which is the 75-year ongoing colonization of Palestine. By omitting all the previous crimes against Palestinians that led to the attack (the killings, the wrongful imprisonments, the torture, the stealing of land…) these 'journalists' actively manipulate the public opinion, portraying the Hamas attack as unprovoked, when you cannot possibly expect a colonization to have 0 resistance.

And an honorable mention to the zionists who are trying to morph the anti-Israel stance into an anti-Jew one. This isn't about religion, I've said this once and I will say it again, Jews around the world are condemning the actions of their government. Just recently, Jews were arrested in NYC for standing against Israel. (source)

This is a humanitarian cause. We're humans, this is the one denominator factor that unites all. We read about previous genocides in history. We wondered how people could support the killings of innocent people, men and women, and children and babies. It is happening right now again, and media propaganda plays a significant role in shaping public perceptions.

I couldn't include everything here but please, I urge you to use your critical thinking. Don't believe everything the media tells you, and this is coming from a graduated journalist. We learn about propaganda and how to counter it, which also means we learn about how to manufacture it.

So don't be gullible, boycott the companies who support Israel (mainly HP, Siemens, AXA, Puma, Israeli fruits and vegetables, Sodastream, Ahava, Sabra. check BDS for more information) and urge your governments to support the ceasefire. We have a voice and we should use it, even if we're uncomfortable, even if we're scared. Do it. By staying silent you become complicit in genocide.

[lemonhemlock]

I did not get into Game of thrones when it first started airing. In fact, I waited until it was long past it's heyday (around s6 or 7) to check it out because the marketing and the conversation surrounding it misled me into thinking it was nothing more than "grimdark" bullshit. As one famous YouTuber sarcastically called it "hot fantasy that fucks." So, I avoided Martin's work for literal years due to the impression that I got from online reactors and show-only casuals who did as you and a few others have described as his work being fundamentally misinterpreted.

Fortunately, I overcame my hang-ups, purchased the books (even the supplementary material) and fell down an entire rabbit hole of ASOIAF which led me to recognizing that this world he spent decades creating is far more complex than what had been portrayed onscreen. Regardless of the possibility of the books remaining unfinished (which I am fine with, personally), what George has created is a genuine work of art that I imagine took a tremendous amount of time and energy. So, for so many people online to behave like children and throw tantrums because they feel entitled to him (ew) instead of ushering forth more reasonable conversations and legitimate debates about the nature of his situation frankly makes me look at this fandom with a heavy dose of skepticism.

It is truly baffling to hear even professional critics and see articles describing George as being "ungrateful" or "unprofessional" when it has been well-documented just how often authors get locked out of the adaptation process and left to the wayside as consultants. Look at what happened to Rick Riordan and Christopher Paolini! George R.R. Martin is not the only author to have qualms with how a multimillion dollar studio has mishandled his creative work, and to act like he should remain silent just because he's amassed a certain degree of wealth is quite frankly, ridiculous. He shouldn't have to settle down, be grateful, and stay quiet because the greedy corporate executives and their media drones will get offended by actual criticism that could alter the perception of the adaption being revealed as mediocre for having departed from the source material.

TLDR: authors should be allowed to speak up about their art being sacrificed for commercialization.

Thank you so much for this message, anon! This needs to be talked about more, because I don't think a lot of commentators truly understand the vulgar, late-capitalistic sheen that seems to set in and slowly poison any ASOIAF adaptation. It honestly baffles me how quick some members of this fandom are to rush to the defense of, what is essentially (let's not be kidding ourselves here), a cashgrab by a giant corporation to the detriment of the actual artist and the actual creative foundation behind it.

Why else would "MAX" (if that is even their name) make another (or several other) ASOIAF adaptations? Not to stay true to any philosophical aesthetic vision, as it has become more than apparent with Season 2, but to increase shareholder profits by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Even the basic premise has been shifted in order to address popular trends and satisfy the mindless consumer that doesn't want to engage with anything deeper than their favourite tropes, prettily packaged:

from a story about a doomed ouroborous family superimposed on the pitfalls of feudalism, with villainy and heroism to be found on both sides, it has been simplified and reduced to a narrative that exalts white feminism and disqualifies anyone who opposes its girlboss protagonist. This is Sheryl Sandberg's version of Fire and Blood.

Truly, I think Sara Hess did (unintentionally) outline it the best: "civilians don't matter in Game of Thrones". They don't matter in Game of Thrones, but they matter in A Song of Ice and Fire. The entire heart of the series is contained in Septon Maribald's speech. The writers "kind of", must have forgotten, though.

[feministdragon]

every once in a while a discussion flares up on tumblr:  separatism vs activism reading through the various arguments I find myself agreeing with both sides in a lot of places.   the activism side argues that without it, we wouldn’t have the right to vote, bank accounts, property ownership, financial independence, sexual harassment and abortion laws, a lot of practical structures that free women in concrete ways.  i completely agree with this. the separatism side argues that women need a space away from men to experience themselves as human beings, to experience freedom and to experience female solidarity, and to develop networks of mutual aid.  I also completely agree with this. and then everyone starts fighting, which i really don’t understand.   We need both!  Both is good!   There are more than enough women in the world to do all the projects!  We can have some women creating separatist spaces for women to take shelter in, and we can have some women banding together to create practical change that free women in the short term.   What is there to argue about? I mean, maybe the background of this is the whole lesbian vs straight women thing?   Which tbh i also don’t understand why we have to fight about this.  I’m a lesbian, and the majority of my friends and feminist collaborators are straight women.  just by looking at the women around me I’m very very aware of how being partnered with a woman saves me an incredible amount of bullshit in my life, and yet I’m equally aware of why women choose to be het-partnered. for example in our organization there’s one women whose job title includes the word ‘responsible’.  Her husband began a campaign to undermine her participation by telling her that because her job title said ‘responsible’ that when our organization ‘inevitably bankrupted’ she would be left holding the legal debt which then (his main point) would impact him.  So she was scared by him into wanting to leave her position, when we really don’t have anyone else who can fill that right now, and so it would have caused a huge strain on us, but also, she’s perfect for this position, it’s very good for her, and she likes the work.  We were able to show her that he was just fucking with her, that the legal responsiblity for the money actually lay with a different role in the org, but it was yet another example of how men could reach into our private business and stir us about, because of how women are so financialy and emotionaly bound up with their legal male partners. so, do I cut off my friendship with this woman just because her husband is a danger to us?  Obviously not, because her husband is even more of a danger to her, and I’m trying to support her until her children are old enough that she can safely choose to leave him.   Is it irritating that her husband can just reach through her and fuck with us like that?  Absolutely.  Am I angry that women are constantly misled into marriage and find out too late that they are trapped?  Of fucking course.   Do I then conclude that all straight women are bullshit?   Also of course not.   But am I going to be cautious about who joins the group in future, and only let in lesbians?   Also of course not.  Because every set of hands is valuable and necessary, and we do other things to protect ourselves (like not let any man have a position of power in the org).  so what I want to ask is,  what is the separatism/activism divide about? why are people making it a choice between the two things?  is the foundational problem just either-or thinking?    if you are separatist why do you side-eye male-involved women?   if you are a male-involved woman, why do you side-eye separatists?

(crossposted on the Cloven Hooves forum if you want to comment on it there)

[alicentsgf]

the difference between jace and alicent was that she was saying so only because of her ambitious, and she consider the velaryon’s boys inferior to her children due to her resentment and cruelty against Rhaenyra

We have been shown time and time again Alicent isn't ambitious by nature; didn't want to marry viserys, didn't want Aegon to be king until Otto told her that his and her other childrens lives were at stake. How can you POSSIBLY come out of this believing she's innately ambitious. If her choices were rooted in ambition, there would have been no need at all for the story to continuously paint her as confused and misled. A choice that's coming back to bite them now. So many choices in the way this story has been told have been mounted up to imply that Alicent was wrong, confused, misled by her father, and that she caused the war because she misjudged things. Its led the audience to believe up until this point that everything would have been sunshine and rainbows if only Alicent hadn't stoked division in this family. That Aegon and Rhaenyra wouldn't have been pitted against each other without her input.

Jace’s dialogue walks all of that back. Say Rhaenyra wins the war with her dragonseeds. Say all the greens die, things are peaceful, and Rhaenyra has a long reign. Jace’s dragon, he knows, is his last tenuous thread of legitimacy. When it snaps with the appearance of the dragonseeds, he has nothing left except his mother’s word that he’s her heir. And when she dies that won't mean anything, and his younger, silver-haired brothers will be seen to have the stronger claim. It doesn't matter if little Aegon and Viserys love him, they’ll simply be figureheads for those who don't want a bastard on the throne. Who see it as a threat to their own claims to their seats, and the claims of their sons and grandsons. If Daemon is still alive, you think he’ll see Jace ascend over his sons? And so decades later, decades after Alicent and her children are all dead, Jace would still have his head resting on the metaphorical chopping block. As would any children he had with Baela. Rhaenyra sealed Jace’s fate when she chose his father, and ensured his own cousins and brothers would be used against him by his enemies, that's what he's trying to get her to understand. And it’s exactly what Alicent tried to get her to understand, only to be gaslit and silenced.

[jelloholic]

My defense of Alicent Hightower in the HotD season 2 finale

(Not an Alicent stan, but this must be said)

Her character is still about duty and sacrifice. It's just that over the course of this season, with many realizations dawning on her, her priorities changed. She loves her kids deeply, but Aegon and Aemond are a threat to everyone, including themselves, the people, and most importantly, Halaena. Things she had not previously known. It's her duty as the mother of Halaena to sacrifice her sons to protect her.

What could she do to protect herself, Halaena and Jahaera? The greens are no longer a safe space for them, and the blacks have shown to simultaneously be threat if they oppose them, but willing to compromise if she so chooses. She no longer has any sway with her own party, but she can negotiate with Rhaenyra. The blacks have the advantage with more dragons, and she can't get rid of them. The greens have the advantage by having Kingslanding, and she can give it away. It's made clear time and time again that the only thing she can do to save Haleana is side with the blacks.

Many things dumbfounded me with the reactions to *that* scene:

"Ryan made her a hypocrite!" That has been an integral part of her character since day 1

"Why did she change her mind after pushing Aegon to the throne herself!?" She was partly misled by her father about his intentions, Aegon is a terrible man and king that serves only as a figurehead for the men around him to use, she misunderstood Viserys's last words, she couldn't predict the future to know that her boys would be violent, the brutality of the war hit her with Aemond and Daemon's actions, etc. These are all things she didn't know beforehand that she only realized in season 2, she became disillusioned, like any other sane person would've been

"How could a mother do that to her own son?!" People tend to idealize motherhood to a ridiculous degree. They have unrealistic expectations of women. How they should always think of all their children all the time, no matter what. Yet when those same mothers defend their horrible children, suddenly they're terrible. When most of us find out a loved one did an incredibly morally reprehensible act, we distance ourselves (or give them one or more chances to redeem themselves before doing so), it's odd that people don't consider that an option for fictional characters. Nothing will ever be good enough for many viewers. These people also tend to forget that bad parents exist? And that their behaviors might've been abusive, but *sometimes* done with good intentions? We established her broken bond with her 2 eldest boys already and why, but people are shocked about Daeron, but she didn't raise him. She's been disconnected from him since the start. Most parents who give their children away will grieve at first, then eventually move on and only think about the kid occasionally. She's focusing on doing what's good for her daughter now, 'monsters' and 'strangers' be damned

I do have criticism for some of the ways she and the other women were written, but this level of outrage is ridiculous

(I will gladly interact with ppl that disagree, but I'm not entertaining misogyny (like calling her a cunt or a bitch), arguments against things I have NOT said, or ppl so lost in their emotions that they can't string up a coherent thought)

[torukmaktoskxawng]

Keep scrolling if you blame Spider

Spider, who is literally still a child by human standards.

Spider, who never gave away Jake's or the Omatikaya's location.

Spider, who cares about the Sullys' safety over his own.

Spider, who didn't want any blood on his hands or a guilty conscience if he left someone to die.

Spider, who just didn't want anyone else to get hurt.

Spider, who never betrayed the Na'vi (unlike Jake but hey, who's counting that, right?)

Spider, who had to fend for himself to survive the toughest events because he didn't have an adult who would tear the world apart for him like the Sully children do.

Spider, who loves Pandora and Eywa.

Spider, who just wanted to be one of Her children because he never knew what it was like for a mother to love him.

Spider, who probably understands Eywa's whole "balance of life" meaning more than others.

Spider, who already lost Neteyam but he couldn't afford to lose anyone else in his life, no matter how terrible they are as a person.

Spider, who helped Jake save Kiri and Tuk when everyone else was still too shocked to move.

Spider, who chose mercy over violence/death.

Spider, who did what he could to survive (I'd like to see how YOU would react under such pressure. It all seems obvious and easy watching from the other side of the screen, right?)

Spider, who was likely being misled, brainwashed, and gaslit by the Recoms.

Spider, who is clearly a victim but hey, let's blame him for simply being a decent human being, right?

Spider, who likely thought he owed Quaritch after he saved him from being tortured.

Spider, who likely thought he owed Quaritch for giving him life.

Spider, who just wanted a father who was proud of him.

Spider, who has been clearly neglected by the heroes (Jake and Neytiri) but doesn't openly or verbally blame them.

Spider, who doesn't purposely threaten children's lives like Quaritch and Neytiri do.

Spider, who just wanted to be one of the People.

Spider, who wouldn't have made those difficult choices had he been properly loved and raised.

Spider, who is as easy to blame as Lo'ak for endangering the people they love (but again, no one's counting, right?)

Spider, who is clearly not a villain, just misunderstood.

Spider, who wasn't raised by the village but didn't burn it down to feel its warmth because he's not petty, not vindictive, not evil, and not a killer.

Spider, who is. A. Child.

[eddathegreat]

More Things That Happened In Pale

A dog dies and it's so sad that the moon starts bleeding.

An army of creepy children stand watch as security for town council meetings.

A memory wipe is performed with a very passionate kiss, while the memory-wiper's wife watches on.

An important character is a mysterious faceless woman who is always obscured by her surroundings, even in plain sight, so that people can't see her non-face.

A self-aware crazy woman follows goblins to a high school hockey game, then sees her neighbors and has to make small talk with them about the weather.

To keep a murder witness from talking, a man takes her kidney damage (not cures, takes).

I have misled you again, this is just the prologue.

[letoscrawls]

I'm so disgusted by the portrayal of the israeli genocide in palestine by the western media. My country has a far right government and watching the national news is unbearable. Journalists are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find anything related to israel to talk about and they barely mention the constant bombing in gaza. They even found relatives of italian-israeli residents there who don't even speak italian!! They are like 0.5% italian at best but they do the most to cover everything happening on the israeli side. Then you open social media and it's flooded with videos and pictures of the genocide and it's sickening. I consider myself priviliged to have access to information on the internet, but i can imagine the elderly (there are a lot here) or people who can't access internet for some reason and rely on television for updates on the situation. It's very easy to be misled by this sionist propaganda.

You don't have to be an expert on the situation to speak up, killing thousands of children is wrong, no matter the circumstances. I am revolted by the stance of my government and the west and i feel ashamed to be represented by a party of fascists.

I found this article with all the resources to ask for a ceasefire to italian institutions, it might not be much (especially considering the position of our government) but it's still a way to protest against the genocide in palestine:

https://www.bossy.it/a-chi-e-cosa-scrivere-per-chiedere-il-cessate-il-fuoco-su-gaza-alle-istituzioni-italiane.html

[saltywinteradult]

I’m rewatching season one of Bridgerton and what strikes me about the rape scene is how completely unnecessary it was. The biggest reason why it shouldn’t have been included is obviously that showing a white woman raping a black man and framing it as empowering is disgusting. But what really gets me is that there was absolutely no reason why that scene needed to be there. Daphne already had all the information she needed for the plot, ie her and Simon’s conflict over having children, to happen. She had already found out that Simon misled her. The rape scene could’ve been cut and not only would the plot have worked just as well without it - it arguably would’ve worked better, because then the show wouldn’t be undercutting Daphne’s righteous anger over being misled by having her do something orders of magnitude worse to Simon in retribution. Not to mention, then the show wouldn’t have ruined the rest of season one by destroying any sympathy I had for Daphne and any desire I had to see her and Simon end up together. The show would’ve been far better off on every level without that disgusting scene - so what the fuck were they thinking when they decided to include it?

[walkswithmyfather]

Isaiah 14:24, 27 (NLT) “The Lord of Heaven’s Armies has sworn this oath: “It will all happen as I have planned. It will be as I have decided...The Lord of Heaven’s Armies has spoken— who can change his plans? When his hand is raised, who can stop him?”

Psalm 71:5 (NIV). “For you have been my hope, Sovereign Lord, my confidence since my youth.”

“Sovereign Over Sin” By In Touch Ministries:

“Temptation will come, but God promises to give us the power to resist.”

“God is sovereign. He is the supreme authority over everything, including sin and its repercussions. He doesn’t cause anyone to sin, but He will allow temptation to enter our life. And since we have free will and the Holy Spirit, we can decide how to respond. Thankfully, He retains ultimate control and weaves the consequences of our actions in accordance with His purposes.

Sometimes God permits our sin to run its full course. For instance, when the Israelites refused to turn away from their disobedience, He “gave them over to the stubbornness of their heart, to walk by their own plans” (Psalm 81:12). Without divine protection, the nation s uccumbed to corrupt influences and was overrun. Those consequences drove the Israelites to repentance, which was His original plan. Conversely, God will sometimes put an immediate halt to sin. Such was the case when King Abimelech took Abraham’s wife to himself. The king had been misled and was not aware that he was about to commit a sin. But the Lord knew of the deception and intervened (Genesis 20:1-6).

Temptation is inevitable, but engaging with sin is a choice. God’s sovereignty means that any temptation must first pass through His permissive will. In this way, He makes sure His children are never tempted beyond what they can resist (1 Corinthians 10:13).”

[Photo thanks to Heather Wilde at Unsplash]