#THIS IS ABOUT THE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE WAR

[3bugsinatrenchcoat]

there is ambiguity about the villains, though! especially in the prequel era. the jedi. it's a question to the audience whether they see them as bystanders or inherently complicit in the actions of palpatine. is anakin the only villain, or is he a normal(ish) reaction to the pressure put on him by the systems that the galaxy has decided are fine? yeah, the fascists are bad, but where do you draw the line? at what point in that gray area do they become fascists? are they forever unforgivable?* that's what the prequels ask you.

i'll give you that it's more direct in the original and sequel trilogies: they have good guys and bad guys (or, they probably do -- i didn't devote half a decade to obsessing over them daily, so i'm less familiar). but i don't think it's totally accurate to say that there's no moral ambiguity at all.

*i just want to be super clear, so i'm going to give some examples of what i mean. the council are both antagonists and mentors (in the hero's journey model). they fight the villains, but they allow the government/palpatine power and unlimited access to anakin. they supply and control troops of basically enslaved clones for the war. they're committed to peace, but they abduct children into their militant religious order. their interpretation of their own code is inaccurate to the original intent it was written with, and they use it to enforce unjust rules in lower-ranking members. it's obvious that, to some extent, their actions and inactions are responsible for the sith coming to power. but they're not the villains, they're bystanders. that's the ambiguity, not whether luke or rey are morally wrong (i definitely think that person is wrong -- they're written to be so plainly good and innocent i don't really think it's arguable that they're good guys. that's almost all they are), but what guilt is held when you are a bystander to the rise of fascism. and i don't think it's very fair to say that pointing out that really interesting way of examining the writing is excusing fascism. (sorry if i'm misinterpreting anything. i'm not trying to fight, i just wasted like a ¼ of my life on star wars and i couldn't stop myself from writing all this. and if i didn't post it now i would have wasted 30 more minutes.)

You couldn't make star wars today because they'd claim that destroying the death star would make them as bad as the empire and the real villains would be revealed to be rebels who went too far.

[brushed-gecko]

my friend wrote a message to a youtuber she likes after seeing her comments regarding the recent war between israel and hamas, explaining why supporting hamas is wrong. i wanted to share it with you all so as many people as possible see it.

"Hi, my name is Hila, I live in Israel, and for the past few years I've followed your content and loved watching your videos. Your content has cheered me up in difficult times, which is why it's important for me to write this message. I have been debating whether or not to write this to you for some days now, so I hope you take the time to read it.

I want to start off by saying something that sadly isn't as obvious as it should be these days- I am against the killing of innocent men, women and children in Gaza. I am against most actions that my own government, which I did not vote for, has taken in the past years toward Palestinians. I believe that while the Israel-Palestine conflict is an extremely complex one, it can and must be solved peacefully and with as little loss of life possible.

The problem right now is that Hamas, the terrorist organization that started the war that is happening in my country now, has nothing to do with the Israeli Palestine conflict.

I want to explain this further with the next few very important points.

The first, is the way Hamas treats Palestinians and the Gaza strip, and while I assure you that the facts I'm stating here are true and proven, I urge you to read for yourself upon these issues. Throughout the years, all the donations sent to Gaza for humanitarian purposes, food and medicine, has been taken by Hamas and used to fund weapons.

Every time Hamas fires rockets at Israel, around 15 percent of them land inside Gaza, killing people who live there.

Hamas place their rocket launchers inside schools and hospitals, and surround them with children, so that if the launchers are attacked it will result in the death of children and injured innocent people.

These facts have created the saying known in the middle east- most countries use rockets to protect their citizens, Hamas uses it's citizens to protect their rockets.

The second point, is that because Hamas is a terror organization, they have never been involved in any discussion about the conflict, and as they stated many times that are only interested in the killing of the Jewish people, they can never be involved in these discussions.

The third point is that even in the eyes of countries and activists who are pro Palestine, Hamas has crossed a moral line. They are the same as ISIS, they are the same as the people who are responsible for the bombing in Manchester and the same as the people responsible for 9/11.

They are not an activist group who fight for the freedom of Palestine, they are murders and war criminals who use Gaza and it's innocent citizens as a base and cannon fodder.

I would like for you to know some of the things that Israel is doing right now.

In the IDF there is a protocol for bombing a building in Gaza called "Knock on Door". It means that as soon as a building is targeted, the IDF sends a message to evacuate the building and it's surrounding, as to minimize the loss of life.

Right now, as Israel is in an all out war with Hamas, the IDF has sent out a public announcement in all possible platforms to Gaza to evacuate the area which will be bombed 24 hours before the attack.

While we know that this is war and loss of life is inevitable, the IDF is doing the most it can to minimize Palestinian casualties, while Hamas is telling citizens not to evacuate, and use their own people, who they claim to fight for, as a human shield.

I don't know if you are aware of exactly what Hamas is doing in Israel right now, and I hope for your sake that you have not seen some of the terrible photos and videos that I have seen, but I must tell you what supporting Hamas means right now. It means supporting the killing of families in their homes, lighting houses on fire so the family hiding inside will have to run outside so they can be shot, the killing of children in front of their parents and the killing of parents in front of their children. It means supporting the massacre of people in a music festival. It means supporting the raping and kidnapping of around 130 men, women and children, and the literal beheading of 40 innocent civilians, some children younger than 5 years old. It means supporting the holding of entire families and children hostage. It means supporting sending a mother a video of her son being slaughtered through a message from his own phone which they have. It means supporting the killing of more than 1,300 people.

It means supporting pure evil. Even Palestinians and social activists are saying that this is not what they want, you do not fight for freedom with the blood of innocent people on both sides.

Almost all Israeli citizens, myself included, are extremely aware of the problematic way our country has treated innocent people, but if after reading all I have written here you can still say that you support Hamas, I suggest that you take a look into your own moral values.

One last thing, more than half of Israelis and Jewish people are brown and black."

[mroddmod]

little scrapped comic bc it felt a bit ooc to me in hindsight

[littencloud9]

bsd fandom has always mischaracterised kunikida to hell and back but the fact that i am seeing SO MUCH hate for his character right after his 'death' is insane

[thevalleyisjolly]

*takes a deep breath* No but you see, there is no conflict between "Do or do not. There is no try." and "Remember this. Try." They're both getting at the same thing, just from different angles. Yoda tells Luke the former because Luke thinks the training is too difficult, that he's been trying and he still can't do it so he'll never be able to do it. What Yoda is saying is that there's no such thing as a halfway attempt. He's not saying "Succeed in doing this or fail, there is no in-between," he's teaching Luke that you don't start doing something and then just drop it when the effort becomes too much. You do it, even if you fail, or you don't do it. Meanwhile Nemik's manifesto is saying the same thing - no matter how impossible something might seem, it's better to try, you have to try. Both characters are exhorting others to step up and do something, even when it's difficult, especially when it's difficult. There is no dipping in and out, maybe I'll try it out a little and then when it gets too hard or unpleasant, I'll give up and move on to something else. Do not give into despair. The road is not easy and you do not know what lies at the end of it and you may not succeed, you may never succeed, but you must make up your mind and commit to taking it nonetheless. Do it. Make the attempt. Try.

[blue-likethebird]

It’s objectively funny how Disney and filoni have been shoving Ahsoka into every Star Wars project like a square peg through a round hole for years, and now that she has her own show few if any people care about what she’s doing bc we’re all too busy gushing about Sabine/Kanan parallels and a recording of Ezra. Literally every time news has come out about the Ahsoka show starring Ahsoka she barely breaks the top ten while rebels trends for hours. It heals a hole in my bitter little heart

[fromtheseventhhell]

Interesting how the Trident incident is the only moment where people question Joffrey's capacity for cruelty. He is almost universally considered one of the worst asoiaf characters, with no redeemable qualities. No one ever attempts to justify his actions when he abuses Sansa, orders Ned's executions, or any of his other many acts of violence. It's only this moment, a moment meant to introduce us to his cruel nature, that people seem to believe him to be a rational character with limits. It's honestly laughable. It's evident that the people who think like this are just biased against Arya; the majority of these arguments are centered not around Joffrey's violence, but Arya's actions to defend Mycah. People seem to truly believe that the better option would have been to let Joffrey "have his fun" and torment Mycah.

Debating how badly Joffrey would've hurt Mycah misses the entire point of the moment. Joffrey attacks Mycah because he's lowborn, he finds amusement in tormenting others, and he knows he can get away with it. He was quick to pull his sword and draw blood and, from what we know of his character, he undoubtedly would've taken it further. Arya stands up to him because she thinks that Mycah is worth defending which is significant considering she is the only one to do so. She is also the only character who mourns him and is affected by his senseless death, even books later (Ned is affected by his death but I wouldn't say he mourns him, although it is a moment that influences his feelings towards the Lannisters and Robert). Even if, which is a very big if, Joffery hadn't intended to go any further he had already crossed a line by attacking Mycah. The only alternative would be that Arya simply sits by and watches Joffrey further injure Mycah...and that's somehow the "better" option?

The people coming to the conclusion that Arya was the one who escalated the situation (and that it's somehow not Joffrey pulling his sword on an innocent boy) are coming from the perspective of the classist society that they live in. Joffrey attacking a lowborn boy wasn't an issue worth action, but harming a prince is "wrong". Mycah being attacked, and later murdered, is seen as inconsequential to the other characters (and readers) because he is lowborn. That's the thing though. You aren't supposed to look at this situation where a young boy is murdered for no reason and think that the only one who defended should've behaved differently. This moment is a criticism of the classist society these characters live in. It is significant that Arya is markedly less classist than a majority of other characters and cares when no one else does.

Further, if Arya were truly in the wrong for her actions then Joffrey wouldn't have needed to lie about what happened. From the very existence of the "trial" and Arya being given the chance to tell her version of events, we know that there wouldn't be any punishment if the truth of the situation had been told from the very beginning. The only reason there was an issue is because Joffrey decided to attack Mycah, and then later lie about what happened. Arya is not responsible for Joffrey's cruelty, Cersei's enabling, or Robert's subsequent apathy. The fact that people can't seem to comprehend this is maddening. I've never seen people have the same attitude towards Sansa for speaking up for Dontos, even though it incurred Joffrey's wrath and would've escalated had Sandor not spoken up. Why are Sansa's actions brave and kind, but Arya's are seen as stupid and reckless? What happened to not blaming young characters for the actions of others?

This is one of those things where the fandom decides for themselves that they know the story being told, without actually looking at how it's written. They would rather debate on (baseless) hypotheticals than look at why George presented the story to us the way he did. It takes an insane amount of misinterpretation to decide that Arya's actions are the reason for Mycah's death and misses a, rather large, point being made by the author. Notably, none of these people can ever provide evidence from the book to support their insistence that Joffrey would've simply left Mycah alone. You would think that since that's the basis of their argument and they're so adamant that their analysis is correct, they would be able to support their reasoning. It's almost as though the books don't support their interpretations...

[some-teeth-in-a-trench-coat]

Ok I'm done putting up with this and I'm done asking anonymously. Please tag your posts about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. All of them. Next time I see an unfiltered post I'm asking in DMs so hopefully people will actually see it and respond and I don't have to look at their unfiltered blog while I wait. And if that doesn't work I'm unfollowing no matter how long we've been mutuals.

If you try to put words in my mouth or claim this post is taking any specific stance on the issue I will block you.

[gomacave]

ITS YURI!!!!!! IRS YURI ITS YURI ITS YURI ITS WOKE YURI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[charmac]

i don't think people hcing charlie as transfem are trying to dismiss the transmasc charlie hc! i think it's more of a projection thing for a lot of people, since i know at least a few of the main people who enjoy the headcanon are transfem themselves!! i don't think you have much to worry about in terms of people dismissing the tmasc or other genderqueer charlie hc anyways, since it's already much more popular! i think you're perhaps being a bit too critical.

I've literally never said anything like this at all, I think you've either misinterpreted something else I've said or have the wrong blog.

All of my Charlie gender-based posts or reblogs I've stated/tagged that I think any interpretation of Charlie's gender can make sense, be it transmasculine, transfeminine, nonbinary, agender, whatever you want.

I am one of the ~3 blogs that has access to The Bathroom Problem script and who posted and pointed out that you can make out/slightly hear the Joyce cuts in the episode itself. I would not have excitedly shared that for open-interpretation if I was "worried" people are "dismissing" transmasc Charlie headcanons. (Which, again, I've literally never said, but in any case, I believe it's valid for anyone to dismiss a headcanon they don't agree with, fandom is a sandbox.)

What I personally don't care for are genderbends and, almost by extension, analysis/meta on canon scenes that rename/re-gender the characters with no basis (or, one that comes off wrong). Both topics I've literally never publicly spoken out against here, nor have I said anything bad/negative to everyone who personally enjoys these things, so there is no way for me to possibly be "too critical" in that regard. I keep most of my opinions to myself and my close mutuals, almost exactly for what you're saying: I personally don't want to harsh or dismiss anyone's headcanons.

I have never said, and have never meant to imply, that anyone interpreting Charlie as transfem is attempting to dismiss anyone else's headcanon (which again would be a non issue to me anyway).

[morganafayes]

What does Gwen sacrifice for Arthur(aside her taking care of his father for two years)? Arthur literally rose her from dirt to gold.

well. i'd assume her sanity for one! also hey anon what do you mean by 'dirt to gold'... quickly. in a way that's normal about class!

[eenochian]

it’s very funny how this fandom suddenly cares so much about sensitivity, meanwhile no one was up in arms about folks calling valeria shit like “cartel mommy” and simping for her. and, if you point this out, you get told that it’s “less important” or incomparable. way to tell victims of cartel violence that they don’t matter. y’all can’t preach about sensitivity and mindfulness while doing the exact opposite of that.

sensitivity is something that needed to be brought up a long time ago. people need to be mindful about the content they’re engaging with and producing. COD and its characters are based on very real issues and very real situations, mindfulness is needed for every single character.

seeing this only be brought up in the context of makarov and graves is honestly so, so frustrating. they’re not the only problematic characters that you need to consider when making content. western militaries like the US and UK are incredibly controversial and have devastated vulnerable people and their countries. price, ghost, soap, gaz— any member of the military, especially the special forces, is problematic. they’re not good people and should not be treated like saints, nor should they be idolized for what they do.

that all being said, the concepts of “be mindful and sensitive when making content” and “let people enjoy problematic media” can absolutely, 100%, co-exist. art is not meant to be a paradigm of moral goodness, it has always been a medium for people to explore things that are considered "taboo" in a safe space. there's a reason why "dead dove: do not eat" exists as a genre – with proper warning and precautions put in place, people can explore darker topics. for some, it's morbid interest. for others, it's a way of coping with trauma and experiences they've had in real life.

i want to repeat this just to make it very clear: be mindful and sensitive with the content you're producing. do not romanticize topics that should not be painted in a good light. don't minimize the impact of characters' actions or act like people are in the wrong for being uncomfortable with them. in this fandom especially, people treat atrocities like jokes because we're becoming desensitized to them. it's up to every individual to ensure that they don't forget how impactful a lot of this stuff is in real life. war is not a joke. terrorism is not a joke. people dying is not a joke. do not romanticize any of these things in your content, even if you're exploring the different sides of the people behind these things.

humanize the characters all you want. horrible people are still people, after all. humans are not one-dimensional beings. humanize them, but do not romanticize them.

be kind to victims, be sensitive, and be mindful about what you engage with. no one is perfect, no thing is perfect, but we can always do better. we need to approach every topic through this lens instead of picking and choosing who to support. everyone is deserving of it, everyone is entitled to basic respect. we don't need to compete and argue over who has it worse, we just need to be better across the board. support real victims. don't let media warp your perceptions of reality. be conscious of the content you make and consume.

[pigeonluvrr96]

your honor…

your honor, you’re absolutely correct, my client did do that. she absolutely did all of that. can i defend her, you may ask? no i cannot, nor do i have any desire or inclination to. if i’m being completely honest with you, i hope she gets worse. i hope she continues spiraling further and further -

[halenhusky309]

I used to think that the ship wars between Megop and Oplita spawned from Transformers : One movie would be insufferable. But considering the state of media literacy is in the gutter now, the bad takes and mischaraterizations would be the one that put me to early grave.

[maegalkarven]

Sometimes I think Levi and Gortash deciding to destroy the Elder Brain is unrealistic, but then I remember the state of (not scared because he his clothing protects him from that, but let's call it nervousness. Nerves. Almost but not quite anxious) frenzy Gortash is in the convo near the Morphic Pool, and what canonically neither of them can subside the brain.

Emperor can, turned illithid Orpheus or companion can, but are either of these evil bitches trusting someone else or turning themselves into mind flayers? I don't think Gortash trusts the transformation he can't personally control and Levi was transformed against his will enough, he won't be doing that again, no, thanks.

So destroying the brain is very likely the only choice they have for survival and I believe Levi, with his kind-of-outsider view and added info about Elder Brain (the tadpole connecting them and the convos he had with Elder Brain) can convince Gortash this thing is playing them and it has grown too dangerous and It's either it or them now, so it's really an easy choice.

The need to survive vs The possible power, but I think the need to survive will win, bc if there's a will, there's a way, and there's no will if Gortash dies (he goes directly into Bane clutches and he knows that).

So it's "Destroy the failed project and start anew" for them.

Levi heavily insists in abusing the powers the Hells have. He remembered SOME parts of their raid on Mephistopheles' vault and is now obsessed with what lays behind other doors/locks hiding other treasures. The inaccessibility of the vaults and the difficulty of the task only makes him want to do it more.

[mandalora]

It’s probably an inevitability of a franchise being this far reaching and this popular and this long lasting but it is so baffling how much of the wider star wars fanbase tries to “fix” star wars