#WAR (coding discourse) IS OVER!!!!!

[azuremist]

FROM THE CREATOR HIMSELF I’M CACKLING

[scientia-rex]

When I was in ninth grade I wanted to challenge what I saw as a very stupid dress code policy (not being allowed to wear spikes regardless of the size or sharpness of the spikes). My dad said to me, “What is your objective?”

He said it over and over. I contemplated that. I wanted to change an unfair dress code. What did I stand to gain? What did I stand to lose? If what I really wanted was to change the dress code, what would be my most effective potential approach? (He also gave me Discourses on the Fall of Rome by Titus Livius, Machiavelli’s magnum opus. Of course he’d already given me The Prince, Five Rings, and The Art of War.)

I ultimately printed out that phrase, coated it in Mod Podge, and clipped it to my bathroom mirror so I would look at it and think about it every day.

What is your objective?

Forget about how you feel. Ask yourself, what do you want to see happen? And then ask, how can you make it happen? Who needs to agree with you? Who has the power to implement this change? What are the points where you have leverage over them? If you use that leverage now, will you impair your ability to use it in the future? Getting what you want is about effectiveness. It is not about being an alpha or a sigma or whatever other bullshit the men’s right whiners are on about now. You won’t find any MRA talking points in Musashi, because they are not relevant.

I had no clear leverage on the dress code issue. My parents were not on the PTA; neither were any of my friend’s parents who liked me. The teachers did not care about this. Ultimately I just wore what I wanted, my patent leather collar from Hot Topic with large but flattened spikes, and I had guessed correctly—the teachers also did not care enough to discipline me.

I often see people on tumblr, mostly the very young, flail around in discourse. They don’t have an objective. They don’t know what they want to achieve, and they have never thought about strategizing and interpersonal effectiveness. No one can get everything they want by being an asshole. You must be able to work with other people, and that includes smiling when you hate them.

Read Machiavelli. Start with The Prince, but then move on to Discourses. Read Musashi’s Five Rings. Read The Art of War. They’re classics for a reason. They can’t cover all situations, but they can do more for how you think about strategizing than anything you’re getting in middle school and high school curricula.

Don’t vote third party unless you can tell me not only what your objective is but also why this action stands a meaningful chance of accomplishing it. Otherwise, back up and approach your strategy from a new angle. I don’t care how angry you are with Biden right now. He knows about it, and he is both trying to do something and not doing enough. I care about what will happen to millions of people if we have another Trump presidency. Look up Ross Perot, and learn from our past. Find your objective. If it is to stop the genocide in Palestine now, call your elected representatives now. They don’t care about emails; they care about phone calls, because they live in the past. I know this because I shadowed a lobbyist, because knowing how power works is critical to using it.

How do you think I have gotten two clinics to start including gender care in their planning?

Start small. Chip away. Keep working. Find your leverage; figure out how and when to effectively use it. Choose your battles, so that you can concentrate on the battle at hand instead of wasting your resources in many directions. Learn from the accumulated wisdom of people who spent their lives learning by doing, by making mistakes, by watching the mistakes of their enemies.

Don’t be a dickhead. Be smarter than I was at 14. Ask yourself: what is your objective?

[littlesparklight]

Got the (foolish lol) idea to go through some of the works I know give physical descriptions of at least some Trojan war characters and collate them. They aren't in alphabetic order, sorry, but the works/authors are colour coded, at least!

I'll do this in two parts; this one for Achaean characters, the next one for Trojans. Watch Philostratus fanboy over Palamedes and Protesilaos (why????) and marvel, when compared to basically everyone else's description, across all works!

Helen The Iliad: 'terribly does she seem like the immortal goddesses to look on' (spoken of her, not narration), divine/shining/noble among women In Hesiod and other works she is given the xanthos = blond/auburn/etc epithet Dares: Helen resembled Castor and Pollux. She was beautiful, ingenuous, and charming. Her legs were the best; her mouth the cutest. There was a beauty-mark between her eyebrows. (Castor and Pollux: they were twins, blond haired, large eyed, fair complexioned, and wellbuilt with trim bodies.) Malalas, Chronographia: full-grown, well-dressed, with fine breasts, white as snow, with beautiful eyebrows, a beautiful nose, shapely, curly-haired, blonde-ish, with big eyes, charming, with a beautiful voice, a formidable sight among women. She was 26 years old. Tzetzes, Antehomerica: white, with soft skin and beautiful eyebrows and nose. Her skin was so white and bright as if it was made of snow. She had lovely breasts and a pretty face; she had languishing and large eyes and a melodious charming voice; she had long, curly, blond hair; she was well-behaved and perfect in everything she did; she was a lot more beautiful than all the other women, just like the moon is brighter than all the stars in the sky. At that time she was twenty six years old.

Agamemnon The Iliad: '[…] tell me the name of this gigantic man. […] To be sure there are other men even greater in height, […] handsome, nor so majestic, for he seems a kingly man.' Dares: blond, large, and powerful. He was eloquent, wise, and noble, a man richly endowed. Philostratus, Heroicus: Agamemnon and Menelaos were alike neither in appearance nor strength. […] He looked majestic and magnificent and like the sort of person who offered sacrifice to the Graces. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: white, big, of a wide chin and dark hair. He was well-bearded, well-educated, resembling the blessed ones.

Menelaos The Iliad: xanthos = blond/auburn/bright, 'standing towered with his broad shoulders. Dares: moderate stature, auburn-haired, and handsome. He had a pleasing personality. Philostratus, Heroicus: Agamemnon and Menelaos were alike neither in appearance nor strength. […] [he] wore his hair boyishly long, as was the Spartan custom, and the Achaeans made allowance for him when he was visiting, since they did not mock those who came from Euboea even though their hair was ridiculously long. He says he conversed most easily and very concisely, mixing pleasant speech with his discourse. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: the bodily frame smaller [than Agamemnon]; he had a breadth, though. He had a red skin, dense beard and blond hair.

Odysseus The Iliad: 'lesser in height than Agamemnon […], but he seems broader in the shoulders and chest.' (Also shorter than Menelaos.) Dares: tough, crafty, cheerful, of medium height, eloquent, and wise. Philostratus, Heroicus: extremely skilled in public speaking and clever, but he was a dissembler, a lover of envy, and praised malice. His eyes were always downcast, and he was the sort of person who engages in self-examination. He appeared more noble than he was in military matters; surely he was not well versed in preparing for war, in commanding naval battles and sieges, or in drawing of spear and bows. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: middle-aged, pot-bellied, white, with plain hair, nose looking down and fiercely glaring.

Achilles Dares: a large chest, a fine mouth, and powerfully formed arms and legs. His head was covered with long wavy chestnut-colored hair. Though mild in manner, he was very fierce in battle. His face showed the joy of a man richly endowed. Philostratus, Heroicus: For Achilles' physique appeared startling and divine […] When he became an ephebe, a brightness radiated from his face, and his body was beyond natural size, since he grew more easily than do trees near springs. […] hair is thick, lovelier than gold, and becoming no matter where and how either the wind or he himself may move it. His nose is not quite aquiline, but almost so; his brow is crescent-shaped. The spirit in his eyes, which are bluish-gray, casts off a certain eagerness even when he is still; when he is rushing on, they spring out along with his purpose, and then he seems more lovely than ever to those who cherish him. (long hair until Patroklos dies) Tzetzes, Posthomerica: tall, of a beautiful chest, graceful in everything, white, of blond curly and thick hair. He had a big nose, melodious voice and the eyes of a woman. His glance was terrible, in a race was swift-footed; he had long legs and scanty beard.

Patroklos Dares: handsome and powerfully built. His yes were gray. He was modest, dependable, wise, a man richly endowed. Philostratus, Heroicus: Patroklos, although he was not much older than Achilles, was a divine and sensible man, […] In size and bravery he was between the two Ajaxes. He fell short of the son of Telamon in all things, but he surpassed both the size and bravery of the son of Locris. Patroklos had an olive complexion, black eyes, and sufficiently fine eyebrows, and he commended moderately long hair. His head stood upon his neck as the wrestling schools cultivate. His nose was straight, and he flared his nostrils as eager horses do. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: middle-aged, potbellied and well-bearded. He had blond hair, red skin and lovely face.

Ajax, the son of Telamon The Iliad: 'outstanding among the Argives in height and broad shoulders' ; repeatedly called only second to Achilles in everything but looks. Dares: powerful. His voice was clear, his hair black and curly. He was perfectly single-minded and unrelenting in the onslaught of battle. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: brave, great, quick, with a nice nose and curly hair; He had a dark skin; he was well-bearded and grim-looking. He was more beautiful than everybody, except for Achilles.

Ajax, the son of Oileus The Iliad: lesser [than Ajax the great] by far, for he was a small man […] Dares: stocky, powerfully built, swarthy, a pleasant person, and brave. Philostratus, Heroicus: appeared less intelligent [than Diomedes and Sthenelus] […] looking fierce, and throwing his long hair back Malalas, Chronographia: tall, strong, tawny, squinting, good nose, curly hair, black hair, thick beard, long face, daring warrior, magnanimous, a womanizer. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: tall and had bright eyes. He was nice, had long face and dark curly hair.

Diomedes Dares: stocky, brave, dignified, and austere. No one was fiercer in battle. He was loud at the war-cry, hot-tempered, impatient, and daring. Philostratus, Heroicus: steadfast and having eyes that are blue-gray and not black at all and a straight nose; his hair was woolly and dirty. […] modest upon rebuke, checked the eruption of his anger, and refused to insult the troops or to be disheartened. He himself considered it appropriate for an army to appear unwashed, and he commended sleeping in any opportune place; his provisions consisted of what was available, and he did not take pleasure in wine unless troubles came upon him. Diomedes and Sthenelos were the same age. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: [he had a] body that was worth of four young men. He was in good shape with a flat nose, narrow neck and blond hair.

Sthenelos Philostratus, Heroicus: a good size and towering, gray-eyed, with an aquiline nose, fairly long-haired, ruddy, and hot-blooded. […] lacked Diomedes' insight, his power of speech, and his patient endurance which belong to both soul and body. He gave way to anger, was contemptuous of the throng of battle, was savage upon being rebuked, and was prepared for a more delicate lifestyle than was needed for a military camp.

Nestor Dares: large, broad and fair. His nose was long and hooked. He was a wise adviser. Philostratus, Heroicus: (statue, but also the real man?) with a beard that is majestic and well-proportioned; his ears display what he went through at wrestling school, and his neck is restored to its strength. In truth, Nestor stands upright, not defeated by old age, with black eyes and without a drooping nose. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: big, had a nose looking downwards and a fiercely glaring. He had a long face, flame-coloured skin, blond hair and he was wise.

Antilochos The Iliad: Younger than the rest. Philostratus, Heroicus: Because Antilokhos was still young and not mature enough for war when they assembled at Aulis, his father did not agree to his wish to serve as a soldier. (he arrives in the fifth year.) For Achilles' physique appeared startling and divine, but that of Antilokhos seemed to all to be pleasant and gentle. […] Antilokhos resembled Nestor, but that he was swifter, trim in physique, and paid no attention to his hair. He gave me the following details about Antilokhos: He was most fond of horses and hunting with dogs. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: younger than the other Achaeans. Almost a boy, he was white, with a beautiful neck and a big nose. He was storm-footed, provoked fear with his eyes and a beard just sprouting. He was blond with beautiful hair and grey eyes.

Neoptolemus Dares: large, robust, and easily irritated. He lisped slightly, and was good-looking, with hooked nose, round eyes, and shaggy eyebrows. Philostratus, Heroicus: he was good-looking and resembled his father, but was inferior to him in the same way that beautiful people are inferior to their statues. Malalas, Chronographia: of good stature, good chest, thin, white, good nose, ruddy hair, wooly hair, light-eyed, big-eyed, blond eyebrows, blond beginnings of a beard, round-faced, precipitate, daring, agile, a fierce fighter. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: red hair, that's why many had called him Pyrrhus. He was of young age, white or somewhat grey, the colour of the milk; He had beautiful nose and chest, hair curly and was daring; He hadn't ever been hurt, embittered, reckless and of a too wild temper; Thin tiny hair was growing from his beard.

Palamedes Dares: tall and slender, wise, magnanimous, and charming. Philostratus, Herocius: So then in height he was the same as the greater Ajax; in beauty, Protesilaos says, he vied with Achilles, Antilokhos, Protesilaos himself, and with the Trojan Euphorbus. His soft beard was springing up and with the promise of curls; his hair was cut close to his skin; his eyebrows were noble, straight, and came together above the nose, which was perfect as a square and stately. The resolve of his eyes appeared unshaken and fierce in battles, but when he was at rest their gaze was full of comradely affection and affable; he also is said to have possessed the most marvelous eyes among mortals. And in truth, Protesilaos also says that when he was naked, Palamedes weighed halfway between an athlete and a lithe person, and that he had a toughness about his face that was much more pleasant than the golden locks of Euphorbus. Tzetzes, Antehomerica: He was tall, white, with his hair blond and filthy; he was slim and had a long face; he was a servant of wisdom and of Ares. His hair was blond and visibly dirty, because he didn't trouble himself with stupidities like his hair.

Podalirius Dares: sturdy, strong, haughty, and moody.

Nireus The Iliad: the most beautiful man to come beneath Ilion of all the Danaans, after blameless Achilles. Iphigenia in Aulis: repeats the 'most beautiful after Achilles' description.

Machaon Dares: large and brave, dependable, prudent, patient, and merciful.

Idomeneus The Iliad: Older than most of the rest, gray-haired. Malalas, Chronographia: above average height, dark-skinned, good eyes, well set, strong, good nose, thick beard, good head, curly hair, a berserker when fighting. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: quick, had a dark skin, of middle age. He had a short curly hair, wide chin and beautiful nose.

Meriones Dares: auburn-haired, of moderate height, with a well-proportioned body. He was robust, swift, unmerciful, and easily angered. Malalas, Chronographia: shortish, wide, white, good beard, big eyes, black hair, curly hair, flat face, bent nose, quick-moving, magnanimous, a warrior. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: short; he had wide shoulders and beautiful curly hair. He was white; he had crooked nose, nice chin, wide face.

Philoctetes Philostratus, Heroicus: his hair was gray because of age (he was about sixty years old), he was more vigorous than many of the young men, his gaze was most fearsome among mortals, his words most brief Malalas, Chronographia: a good height, well set, dark skinned, eyebrows meeting, brave, good eyes, good nose, black hair, hairy, sensible, accurate archer, magnanimous. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: tall, beautiful, of dark skin and with meeting eyebrows

Protesilaos Dares: fair-skinned, and dignified. He was swift, self-confident, even rash. Philostratus, Heroicus: He is about twenty years old at most. Because he sailed to Troy at such a young age, he has a full, splendid beard and smells sweeter than autumn myrtles. Cheerful eyebrows frame his eyes, which gives him a pleasant, friendly manner. When he exerts himself, he looks intense and determined. But if we meet him at ease, ah, how lovely and friendly his eyes appear! He has blond hair of moderate length. It hangs a little over his forehead rather than covering it. The shape of his nose is perfect, like the statue's. His voice is more sonorous than trumpets and comes from a small mouth. It is most enjoyable to meet him naked, since he is well built and nimble, just like the herms set up in race courses. His height is easily ten cubits, and it seems to me that he would have exceeded this had he not died in his early twenties. Tzetzes, Antehomerica: a lovely face and courage in his eyes; his hair was blond and long; his skin was smooth and dark; he was bold, graceful, with beautiful body and beard; he was vigorous, although much younger than Antilochus.

Calchas Malalas, Chronographia: short, white, all grey, including the beard, hairy, a very fine seer and omen-reader. Tzetzes, Posthomerica: small, white, thin and shaggy-haired. He had his hair grey in the front and white the rest of it.

[fatehbaz]

[A]nti-homeless laws [...] rooted in European anti-vagrancy laws were adapted across parts of the Japanese empire [...] at the turn of the 20th century. [...] [C]riminalising ideas transferred from anti-vagrancy statutes into [contemporary] welfare systems. [...] [W]elfare and border control systems - substantively shaped by imperial aversions to racialised ideas of uncivilised vagrants - mutually served as a transnational legal architecture [...] [leading to] [t]oday's modern divides between homeless persons, migrants, and refugees [...].

---

By the Boer Wars (1880–1902), Euro-American powers and settler-colonial governments professed anxieties about White degeneration and the so-called “Yellow Peril” alongside other existential threats to White supremacy [...]. Japan [...] validated the creation of transnational racial hierarchies as it sought to elevate its own global standing [...]. [O]ne key legal instrument for achieving such racialised orders was the vagrancy concept, rooted in vagrancy laws that originated in Europe and proliferated globally through imperial-colonial conquest [...].

[A]nti-vagrancy regulation [...] shaped public thinking around homelessness [...]. Such laws were applied as a “criminal making device” (Kimber 2013:544) and "catch-all detention rationale" (Agee 2018:1659) targeting persons deemed threats for their supposedly transgressive or "wayward interiority" (Nicolazzo 2014:339) measured against raced, gendered, ableist, and classed norms [...]. Through the mid-20th century, vagrancy laws were aggressively used to control migration [and] encourage labour [...]. As vagrancy laws fell out of favour, [...] a "vagrancy concept" nonetheless thrived in welfare systems that similarly meted out punishment for ostensible vagrant-like qualities [...], [which] helps explain why particular discourses about the mobile poor have persisted to date [...].

---

During high imperialism (1870–1914), European, American, and Japanese empires expanded rapidly, aided by technologies like steam and electricity. The Boer Wars and Japan's ascent to Great Power status each profoundly influenced trans-imperial dynamics, hardening Euro-American concerns regarding a perceived deterioration of the White race. [...] Through the 1870s [...] the [Japanese] government introduced modern police forces and a centralised koseki register to monitor spatial movement. The koseki register, which recorded geographic origins, also served as a tool for marking racialised groups including Ainu, Burakumin, Chinese, [...] and Korean subjects across Japan's empire [...]. The 1880 Penal Code contained Japan's first anti-vagrancy statute, based on French models [...]. Tokyo's Governor Matsuda, known for introducing geographic segregation of the rich and poor, expressed concern around 1882 for kichinyado (daily lodgings), which he identified as “den[s] for people without fixed employment or [koseki] registration” [...].

Attention to “vagrant foreigners” (furō-gaikokujin) emerged in Japanese media and politics in the mid-1890s. It stemmed directly from contemporary British debates over immigration restrictions targeting predominantly Jewish “destitute aliens” [...].

The 1896 Landing Regulation for Qing Nationals barred entry of “people without fixed employment” and “Chinese labourers” [...], justified as essential "for maintaining public peace and morals" in legal documents [...]. Notably, prohibitions against Chinese labourers were repeatedly modified at the British consulate's behest through 1899 to ensure more workers for [the British-affiliated plantation] tea industry. [...]

---

Simultaneously, new welfaristic measures emerged alongside such punitive anti-vagrancy statutes. [...] Such border control regulations were eventually standardised in Japan's first immigration law, the 1918 Foreigners’ Entry Order. [...] This turn towards instituting racialised territorial boundaries should be understood in light of empire's concurrent welfarist turn [...]. Japanese administration established a quasi-carceral workhouse system in 1906 [in colonized territory of East Asia] [...] which sentenced [...] vagrants to years in workhouses. This law still treated vagrancy as illegal, but touted its remedy of compulsory labour as welfaristic. [...] This welfarist tum led to a proliferation of state-run programmes [...] connecting [lower classes] to employment. Therein, the vagrancy concept became operative in sorting between subjects deemed deserving, or undeserving, of aid. Effectively, surveillance practices in welfare systems mobilised the vagrancy concept to, firstly, justify supportive assistance and labour protections centring able-bodied, and especially married, Japanese men deemed “willing to work” and, secondly, withhold protections from racialised persons for their perceived waywardness [...] as contemporaneous Burakumin, Korean, and Ainu movements frequently protested [...]. [D]uring the American occupation (1945–1952), not only were anti-vagrancy statutes reinstituted in Japan's 1948 Minor Offences Act, but [...] the 1946 Livelihood Protection Act (Article 2) excluded “people unwilling to work or lazy” from social insurance coverage [...].

---

Imperial expansion relied on not only claiming new markets and territories, but also using borders as places for negotiating legal powers and personhood [...]. Japan [...] integrated Euro-American ideas and practices attached to extraterritorial governance, like exceptionalism and legal immunity, into its legal systems. [...] (Importantly, because supportive systems [welfare], like punitive ones, were racialised to differentially regulate mobilities according to racial-ethic hierarchies, they were not universally beneficial to all eligible subjects.) [...]

At the turn of the century, imperialism and industrial capitalism had co-produced new transnational mobilities [which induced mass movements of poor and newly displaced people seeking income] [...]. These mobilities - unlike those celebrated in imperial travel writing - conflicted with racist imaginaries of who should possess freedom of movement, thereby triggering racialised concerns over vagrancy [...]. In both Euro-American and Japanese contexts, [...] racialised “lawless” Others (readily associated with vagrancy) were treated as threats to “public order” and “public peace and morals”. [...] Early 20th century discourse about vagrants, undesirable aliens, and “vagrant foreigners” [...] produced [...] "new categories of [illegal] people" [...] that cast particular people outside of systems of state aid and protection. [...] [P]ractices of illegalisation impress upon people, “the constant threat of removal, of being coercively forced out and physically removed [...] … an expulsion from life and living itself”.

---

All text above by: Rayna Rusenko. "The Vagrancy Concept, Border Control, and Legal Architectures of Human In/Security". Antipode [A Radical Journal of Geography] Volume 56, Issue 2, pages 628-650. First published 24 October 2023. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Text within brackets added by me for clarity. Presented here for criticism, teaching, commentary purposes.]

[anxious-witch]

Since I can't seem to stay quiet and I all but made up my mind to stay away from the tag for the next week or so, let's talk about recent discussions about jance and bokris and this...weird ship war that has been going on, shall we?

Under the cut bc while I am annoying, I will spare you the essay if you don't want to read it, god knows I write too many of these.

I don't know when we as a fandom got to a point where we are even fighting over which ship is more likely, more realistic and if the other ship is "more queer coded" or whatever the fuck. I was under the impression that the fandom is meant to be fun thing we do, but that we are all aware shipping is something that's made up. And that even if guys play into it or even if someone is indeed really dating we are aware that what we think about it is irrelevant. Factually, even if someone "was right" about the ship, our perception of it will be widely different than the truth of real people's relationship. Because these are real people, not fictional characters. They cannot queerbait, and jokes aside, even calling someone queer coded is weird, you guys. At the end of the day, we cannot assume someone's sexuality based on how they look.

As for the whole bokris-jance discourse. I don't even know why this is a thing? Bokris people, you got fantastic solo photos of both Bojan and Kris, full of symbolism and got the fire-water link between them that's just perfect for fics.

Jance people, you got joined photoshoot, with Jan and Nace clearly being very intimately connected, which you can interpret in whatever way you wish in fics and fanart. The fact that there are less pictures speaks volumes about how private whatever they have is.

Both have it's merits. Both have it's weight. I don't understand this aggression and fighting over art. Art all of them participated in creating by speaking with Damon about it before doing the photoshoot.

I have friends who ship jance more and I have friends who ship bokris more. The truth about both is that we simply don't know what's going on behind closed doors. Even more importantly, is whatever it is that we don't know worth losing the community we built here? I feel like every time I get into the tag, there is something new people are fighting over. This is just the last thing that seems relevant and that most people got involved into.

But genuinely, I am just tired. I hope things calm down when the new song drops, although god knows there will likely be a discourse over that as well, but hopefully...less than this.

And yeah, I do know this will probably get me blocked from one or the other side or both but let's just...get it over with. Since I feel like this will happen again, I might as well make my stance clear now. Which is-I am not picking a side. I don't think real people can queerbait and that they'd do a joined photoshoot if they didn't have a very deep connection to one another. I don't think they also need their virtue defended because they definitely knew people will speculate after this. But I also don't think this 100% means they are together. Yes, it sucks that queer people need to outright say these things, but I also wouldn't claim a straight couple is dating unless they publicly announced it.

So yeah can we all just please try to chill and do fun stuff again, please?

[palestinegenocide]

Zionism will never be viewed the same after the Gaza genocide

How do you wrap your head around genocide? As one numb week follows another, our leaders blind themselves to massacre and famine.

Joe Biden can see no “compelling alternative to how Israel [wages] a war in these circumstances without doing grievous harm to civilians,” Aaron David Miller writes in the New York Times, excusing the president’s support for genocide. So, Israel isn’t being deliberately cruel and sadistic. The Times coverage would just have you believe they just have no choice– as Donald Johnson wrote in a letter to the paper. “There is no middle ground between what Israel is doing and Gandhian pacifism: They just had to use 2000 lb bombs in urban settings. They have to torture captives and cut off food.”

Miller and other liberal Zionists have adopted that stance, but they are having little influence on Democrats. Polls show that the American people favor giving humanitarian aid to Gaza in far greater numbers than they do giving military aid to Israel, and the progressive base of the Democratic Party has started a political “firestorm” over U.S. support for genocide. The Zionist group J Street postponed its 2024 conference, surely because its own rank and file are enraged by Israel.

James Carville said on MSNBC this week that if Biden loses, it’s Israel’s fault, because the catastrophe in Gaza is an issue “all across the country.”

“This Gaza stuff, this is not just a problem with some snot-nosed Ivy League people…This is a problem all across the country. And I hope the president and Blinken can get this thing calmed down because if it doesn’t get calmed down before the Democratic convention, it’s going to be a very ugly time in Chicago. I promise you that. No matter what happens, I know it’s a huge problem.”

Last week, Brad Sherman, the Israel-loving Congress member from Los Angeles, fought back, accusing “anti-Israel forces” of an “attempt to penetrate and muddy our national discourse.”

Protesters affiliated with the antiwar group Code Pink seek to ask Rep. Brad Sherman about his support for the massacres of Palestinians in Gaza, in a video posted March 20, 2024. The congressman from Los Angeles/Malibu ran away from the protesters and accused them of seeking the genocide of Jews. Screenshot.

Sherman accused them of antisemitism. “There’s blood on your hands for the genocide—you’re trying to kill every Jew.”

That is the chief refuge for Democrats who excuse Israel’s actions. To say that critics of genocide are motivated by antisemitism.

But even liberal media are giving a platform to progressive critics. “The United States is complicit in genocide,” Mehdi Hasan said this week on New York public radio, and when the host pushed back and said Hasan was not blaming Hamas, Hasan said of course he denounces Hamas, but his tax dollars are not going to support Hamas. He also pointed out the inevitable consequences of military occupation. “The oppressed will always rise against the oppressor.”

And in wonderful media news this week, Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg withdrew from a speaking engagement in Kentucky after students questioned his record in the Israeli military nearly 40 years ago.

Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, withdrew from a scheduled speaking event at the University of Kentucky (UK) Wednesday, citing a last-minute schedule change, amidst concerns from students about his past as a former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) prison guard and his views on Zionism…. “We were informed that students expressed concern as to why a former IDF prison guard would be speaking on democracy and journalism at an event celebrating the integration of UK. Students were told he withdrew to not cause harm on campus,” the representative [of a Palestinian solidarity group] stated.

The event was billed as “The Future of Journalism and the Health of Our Democracy.” That’s a little bit of accountability. The editor of the Atlantic is finally being called out for his service for Israel. The writer Yakov Hirsch repeatedly explained on our site that Netanyahu could not have maintained his faultless reputation in the U.S. mainstream without Goldberg fostering “hasbara culture.”

And bear in mind, that Goldberg used to brag about his military service. He wrote a whole memoir about it. Now, times are changing. And other editors who carried water for Israel will surely be called on to defend that work.

This process is just beginning. Zionists still have esteem in the U.S. discourse. The view that Israel supporters promote bigotry against Palestinians is still off-limits. Even as mainstream Jewish organizations assert that those who support Palestinian rights are bigoted against Jews.

“Israel supporters should be seen as on the same moral level as supporters of Bull Connor, but in the U.S. and Western mainstream you can only point to antisemitism— you can never point to anti-Palestinian racism on the Israel side,” Donald Johnson has written on our site.

“We cannot make progress on this issue if the extreme racism of the pro-genocide side is never discussed. People have to be able to say that any group, whether white southerners or South Africans or Nation of Islam members or Christian evangelical Zionists or Germans or, yes, Jewish supporters of Israel, can be racists. They can make racism central to their ideology. But Zionist racism is still a taboo subject, automatically branded as antisemitic, because fundamentally Palestinians are seen as lesser.”

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Troy O. Fritzhand

Canary Mission, an antisemitism watchdog group, has made headlines since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war for its work exposing groups and individuals that support the Palestinian terror group and express hatred for the Jewish state.

Critics have accused Canary Mission of what they call unfair “doxing,” or publicizing information about a person or organization without their consent. However, that has not stopped the watchdog from calling out a wide range of entities for allegedly antisemitic behavior and spreading hateful ideology throughout North America, especially on college campuses.

The organization, which operates anonymously, spoke to The Algemeiner about its work since Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. To stay anonymous and protect the safety of staff, the group did not attribute its remarks to a specific individual.

Since the outbreak of the war, Canary Mission has been working on what it calls four “significant” developments.

“First, there has been a sharp escalation in global antisemitism, both in frequency and severity,” a representative said. “We are no longer discussing simple breaches of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Discourse has alarmingly shifted to overt expressions of hate, including endorsements of Hamas’ violence against Jews, coupled with a stark indifference to the suffering of kidnapped, raped, and murdered Jews.”

Antisemitic incidents have skyrocketed globally since the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7. Most recently, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported a 360 percent surge in such incidents over the past three months, with about two-thirds directly related to the Israel-Hamas war.

“Second,” Canary Mission continued, “antisemites on the left and right seem even more willing to work with each other in their common cause against Jews and Israel.”

“Third, a bipartisan consensus has emerged with a clear recognition of the extreme antisemitism fostered within the anti-Israel movement,” the group added.

Lastly, Canary Mission addressed the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) refusing to say at a congressional hearing last month that calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their schools’ codes of conduct against bullying and harassment.

“Fourth, despite the dismal failure of Harvard, UPenn, and MIT leadership to condemn calls for the genocide against Jews, there have been some positive campus developments,” the watchdog said. “Several universities have finally understood that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is essentially an incubator for hatred and have taken action against them.”

Some schools have banned or suspended SJP chapters, which have orchestrated pro-Hamas demonstrations on campuses across the US, for violating school rules.

Over the past three months, Canary Mission has, among other projects, linked US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) to fundraisers with Hamas ties, profiled dozens of signatories of a letter denouncing Israel just one day after the Oct. 7 massacre, and exposed the organizers of a recent rally in Philadelphia that targeted a local Jewish restaurant for having a history of backing Hamas and calling for the destruction of Israel.

“Our support has significantly grown since the war began,” Canary Mission said. “The traffic to our website has substantially increased, reflecting the heightened interest in our cause … Our new support comes from across the political spectrum from individuals and organizations who understand the danger and hatred Jews are facing. Naturally, we have also received plenty of threats and abuse from neo-Nazis and anti-Israel activists alike.”

Canary Mission described its work as necessary and “far from finished” in combating “unfounded hatred towards Jews and the Jewish state.”

“Since our inception in 2015, Canary Mission has stood as a vigilant watchdog against antisemitism, with a particular focus on the spread of antisemitism in academic institutions,” the group said. “From UPenn to Harvard, our findings reveal an unsettling reality that has been simmering in American academia for years … Our work is comprehensive. We highlight instances of antisemitism across the political landscape and refuse to ignore or excuse it regardless of its source. The profiles we create are not just records but tools that hold individuals accountable for their words and actions. In doing so, we create lasting consequences for those who propagate hate against Jews and Israel.”

Canary Mission dismissed criticism that it’s doxing, saying it does not release any personal information such as home addresses, emails, or phone numbers. The watchdog added it “presents an individual’s words and actions. This enables the public to form their own opinion and decide on their own response to the content presented.”

Concluding, the group said, “Critics will continue to dislike the Canary Mission platform, and supporters will continue to recognize the vital importance of shining a light on anti-Jewish hatred during this difficult time in our history.”

“And a note to our critics: We are not going away — we have only just begun.”

[thoroq]

no because anakin was never dealt with a winning anything, my dude spent years as a slave’s kid working in the junk shop building droids as a form of fun.

i always enjoy the whole “Anakin just expected Obi-wan and Padmé to trust and listen to him?? Asshole” discourse because like… yeah??

not trying to self insert here but as a mentally I’ll individual 🫡 who in a fit of mania sometimes believes they are absolutely, 100% right and has the irrational thinking of; “im right, and you love me, you’re the person I love most, you should get it” & is totally irrationally emotional when they DONT, yeah… I GET THAT SIR!!

Even if it’s completely understandable, deep down I know they’re not at fault for not getting my own emotions, I’m in control of those — not others. I know this. Still, when my partner says something that goes against me it’s like nails against chalkboards sometimes

Again, when looking at Anakin he had nothing. He was a slave all his life, just to a different master each time. on Tatooine, to the Jedi/code, Palpatine and even to the Darth vader suit, he is never of his own free will. It was Qui-gon’s choice to win Anakin, to take him from his mother and home to what he thought would be a better life. granted it is, but he also finds himself isolated from what is imo what is supposed to be his “placeholder family”

MORE IMPORTANTLY Padmé is the love of his life, telling him that what he thinks they need, what he’s done for her and their family etc to be at peace/alive was actually WRONG!! BAD!! All meanwhile he doesn’t have any of his support at his side; Rex is off with ahsoka, obi-wan is fighting grievous on utpau meanwhile Palpatine has puppy Anakin at his every whim and call ((lets not forget that Palpatine had to have been grooming Anakin from a relatively young age)) They don’t get it, they didn’t see Padmé die before their very eyes, they don’t know what’s waiting them. Anakin is trying to save his family. Obi-Wan going against him is salt in the wound, even if Anakin himself knows it’s wrong and against the code and just completely evil.

I mean, Padmé FORGAVE him for the whole tusken massacre smh is it such a stretch to believe she would stand by his side as he waged war against the galaxy? i mean… isn’t that what love is…..? selfish, passionate, narcissistic, messy? she herself is a politician who often prioritized Anakin over her own duties I bet my man expected some “if you have a body in your trunk I’ll bring the shovel” type beat which also, i reiterate, WHY WOULDN’T HE when his wife forgave him for mass genocide, children included?,

he is emotionally/mentally fragile, he just recently slew younglings and killed Mace — you think this mf is thinking logically? Stop giving him the benefit of the doubt; he was a mess throughout the series, not once did he ever have his feet on the ground. He isn’t suddenly going to make the “right” decision, especially if it means sacrificing his loved ones. He’s an extremely flawed character, stop expecting him to make the right call.

The blocks of Anakin’s character have been set up to fall, Obi-Wan and Padmé are two of his most beloved relationships aside from his MOTHER that are completely dogging on his only hope of SAVING THEM. Anakin was never simply, “you have to do what I say or else I’ll get upset!” that’s a disrespect to his character — he can think logically. He isn’t a child. He is strategic, effective, in tcw he is the most efficient victorious warrior making Palpatine’s efforts look even better as leader of the republic. He builds droids from the time he is a young child all throughout his formative - adult years to the extent where knows how to understand their bleep bloops.

Anakin is flawed deeply, he was doomed from the get-go, never had a chance. His feelings are complex and deep and he questions the faith he swore to follow/protect. His character is so interesting to me and I have such a difficult time depicting the raw duality of man he wears on his shoulders everyday. Our desire to do good, yet to be evil; our desire to be unselfish, yet we are selfish.

This beautiful, scarred, monstrous mosaic of a man who from the very beginning, had a huge amount of pressure on him was meant to be so horribly dismantled. What other choice did he have? He is the chosen one, how could he be wrong? How could his idea of saving his family be any less honourable than the Jedi of the Galaxy?

He isn’t simply angry at them for not agreeing with him/falling with him, he feels betrayed. Personally. Obi-Wan and Padmé are pieces of Anakin, people that he loved so fiercely he labeled them as his enemies once they hurt him, he is too far gone to give them any semblance of second chances

anyways yep happy Thursday guys

[blindtaleteller]

Okay, this is gonna be a long one, even summarizing at spots: but hm and yeah.

I agree with almost everything in @valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn post, excepting " The only character in the MCU next to Thanos to have absolute narrative protection is Stark " which.. just plain is not the case; either in the respect of of narrative protection, plot armor from basic repurcussions, or the hero/villain coding that lets that hypocrisy pass in the MCU, or in the scope of Tony's and Wanda too, in particular.

Not in terms of ethics and morality, or other terms either.

Realistically; Wanda, Tony and Cap, along with the entire team they were a part of ? All of them have that going on: and by Civil War in particular; well.. their world recognizing that was literally the main driving part of the political end of Civil War's entire plot, before Bucky Barnes or Zemo is put on screen.. this is true of the majority of the team throughout their varied films too.

Incidentally, this is a well observed problem that goes well and past singular characters; and one I and several others have mentioned and been mentioning in the past regarding Hero and Villain coding in Marvel and the MCU in particular for well; years. While some of it was patched in the films to a semi-believable degree and it's a particular aspect of the MCU in particular that's been gradually been getting worse since 2014-2015? That doesn't change the fact that it is very present, to have to be patched and or overlooked/grazed past at all or in the first place.

I'm going at some of the examples here, but there are a LOT per character; and even more when you take military and intelligence agency structure, policy, the reasons those exist (especially the portions protecting the populace they're meant to serve from exploitation etc) and punishments that come from breaking those? Yeah I am not going to list every single instance; just the first and maybe second. That said, I think I'm going to only cover three anyway because.. well as I said, there is a LOT of that going on: and in most cases the plot armor starts in their first appearances and films.

Thor's immunity well before even Avengers is even larger within their universe; starting in 2011 at an interstellar if not intergalactic level. (See the peace treaty he broke, his status as a traitor and warmonger on a domestic and interstallar level: remember.. the Frost Giants are not another brand of Asgardian nor are they even on the same planet as a separate species already ravaged by war that Asgard had a standing 1000+ year uneasy peace and no contest/trespassing treaty with until 2011: this is why even going there as Asgardians is not just 'illegal' is treason all on it's own: the likes of which is punishable by death sentence: and that is stated several times in the film both before and after Thor's banishment. Though very subtly hinted at in TDW, this is a very plainly stated fact in the first film; and pretty obviously why Heimdall doesn't go for a fourth count of treason for himself as an immediately enabling accomplice by the time TDW does roll around.) This is continued in his unlawful return during the beginning of that war he started, too; and that disregarding fact is also stated just as plainly when Sif & the warriors three head to Earth. On the personal grade.. Thor is also pretty darned glaringly irresponsible, lacking in levels conscience or ownership that comes with it along those lines; and carries on through the whole of the MCU franchise along those lines. While this is a part of his character flaws; it's also carried to stupid levels as part of his plot armor, and more so when you take into account he's done just as bad if not worse than Loki by the time TDW hits.. Thor has absolutely no consequences for any of this or his inherited disregard for other cultures/ruling bodies or their representatives (see his appearance scene in A1 as well as his dialogue through the carrier argument in the lab) and is still about his business while Loki comparatively, is immediately initially sentenced to death without trial post Avengers, a sentence which is then 'downgraded' to 3500-4000 years minimum in solitary confinement.

Steve.. oh boy. Well, honestly and with his very first: he should have ended up in jail before he even met Erskine, with the more than half a dozen charges of falsifying his government documents alone. The implication that he gets off on the 'poor precious sickly wannabe patriot bean' is a bit of a stretch after the sixth time.. which is again a thing he and Bucky tell us on screen themselves. Add in endangering levels of desertion and disobeying orders that would have resulted in the maximum punishment for a violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation being dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for two years: and well. CA:tFA alone honestly would not have happened if not for that plot armor. Steve has huge, huge plot armor: especially as an enlisted man, and later as an employee with an intelligence agency of all things.

Tony.. well lets be real here; his plot armor generally consists of having money, fame; a lot of it, and knowing how to use it: or, in the case of Civil War in particular, those using him learning how to use that and his conscience to forward their own political BS. The strange and or hypocritical if interesting bit about Tony is, while he seems among the most aware of it and reprimand is attempted as early as IM 2 (see the court scene & governmental request to hand over his weaponry) he also rarely takes any responsibility outside of quickly brushed aside dialogue, and the rarity of him handling or plannning any correction well in the realm of that conscience is frankly half assed until after the fact: as Tony generally jumps the gun and the rest of the thought process of weighing pros and cons when it and his anxiety post Avengers nuke-fuelled space trip weigh in (as well as it's results: this is a major part of his snap-judgement reasoning for even trying to loose Ultron from the Scepter; which ultimately does result in both Sokovia falling and Zemo's reasoning in his eventual bombing Kiev in CW: remember, Zemo's motivation is ultimately revenge using the Accords after the Avengers part in Sokovia falling resulted in his remaining family among hundreds if not thousands of other people also dying, while the Avengers continued on without proper consequence for their parts whether that was direct fault like Tony, or negligence, and accomplices etc) gets poked and not changing course when needed is a major flaw of his that causes the majority of his major mis-steps and screw ups, all the way into and yes past Civil War in particular: and he tends to not think about how this affects others around him until again.. good and well after the fact. This is an ongoing theme with Tony as a major flaw; and it's well done to a degree if you're paying attention but yes.. lots and lots of plot armor in the hero coding all around that does not just belong to him for the majority, either. And less so in an aftermath put face-first in Civil War the fact that none of the restrictions or consequences otherwise affect how the Avengers operate afterwards put in plain example with the Nigeria bio-weapon scene.

(Sort-of side note: That whole Nigeria biological weapon theft opening scene, it's premise, it's follow up and framing has issues all over the place in this realm too that I've covered both here and in fic form; but yeah. It does weigh in here as another example in both directions I'm not getting into again. I could write a whole 500 page book about CW and I would still need to write a sequel detailing the breakdowns alone. Ultimately it's a mess even if it is a decent catalyst, and one of the points I don't think they detailed a proper response to in story at all. If you're curious about the baseline as to how it's screwed? Why was Nigeria building biological weapons in the first place; why wasn't it better guarded; and especially why would either of those first two questions be a thing in a major and heavily populated city or even close to it; never mind within walking distance of a VERY busy street market, after Hydra including members of it's defunct cells like Brock have been outed and made desperate to raise the chances of someone taking it in particular should definitely have that kind of dangerous and infectious product in need of being protected by outside agencies at all whether they're the Avengers or not? Yeah, badly handled; that. But fiction/narrative/plot armor on an international scale so.. meh.)

As far as CW in particular goes though; that plot armor in-universe and the incorrect ways both sides take to correct it literally is the point on display in CW, and; has been said and pointed out repeatedly by the creators and the actors themselves during official and BTS documenting interviews given around and during the time of it's release.

The entire premise of the split in is stated openly as being neither 'side' is entirely in the right, or entirely clear of responsibility for events prior; or of the events displayed as current in Civil War either. The debate/argument at the conference table puts this on display fairly well; but doesn't cover the obvious rebuttal of Rhodey's arrogance comment being equally as arrogant in dismissing basic human rights and autonomy, or the fact that from start to finish of that scene; the nukes Ross is referring to are people who absolutely should have some of those under the governments he is representing there; both human and not.

(Missed opportunity there and side note again: that one they should have taken, especially to remind the audience & set up for the 'habeas corpus' mention from Rogers that is pointed that out later in after Bucky is framed for Kiev and caught in Bucharest as part of Zemo abusing that exclusively corrupt and prejudiced system to manage it.. but yeah. The Geneva Conventions as protection of basic human rights are a thing for a reason; and something the Accords and team Ross regularly put aside. Rogers does not go about things properly at all no, but that is again a thing that everyone involved is responsible for not doing in the film in differing degrees and from differing angles. It's ultimately their egos and unwillingness to recognize that or work together and compromise on both sides, that ultimately causes the most issues and damage: all the way to the ending scene. Incidentally, in the aftermath: this is also why dismissing the Accords is one of the few things to make sense post-Civil War. The Accords as presented and especially carried through by those entrusted with it, are every anti-human rights: to the point that it does line up with Hydra's Nazi agenda run 'Project Insight's' goals and intents from CA:tWS at scary and creepy levels.)

The film basically tries to tackle the subjects of the incorrect/downsides and correct/upsides of conformity and oversight under often corrupt officials willing to sacrifice a portion of basic human rights to achieve it (Ross, backed by Tony under guilt after being confronted by Spencer, along with Zemo using his position among those officials to bomb Kiev and frame Barnes thanks to that oversight failing as a result of that dismissal of human rights policies etc) versus; the incorrect/downsides and correct/upsides of full and sometimes ego-driven autonomy without a regulation or full moral checks that include those affected in the resulting event or aftermath (Bucky Barnes framing, Steve).

Personally I don't think they went a little too complex with that theme and story; so much as they simply didn't state or display some of it quite as well as they should have to acheive it for general viewers and those unable to perceive those issues well, or take into account favoritism in the fandom that's rampant in allowing that coding to apply only to their individual favorites.

I've re-watched and broken this film and those leading up to it especially down so many times (dozens and that is not an overstatement), from so many differing angles it's hard for me to miss: but I do understand why and how most tend to forget or graze over the varying points along those lines.

That doesn't change the facts of the film attempting that; or plot armor and the hero/villain coding heavily embedded in it or the MCU as a whole either though. Most of that can and does pass under the 'fiction' rule yes, but I have to point out.. that those who apply that to one fictional character and refuse to do so with the next in line; especially when they exist in the same universe and film/s?

That, is just plain hypocrisy and favoritism.

'Team Cap' and Team Stark' in particular as a concept is yes and in fact a fan made hype machine that they ran with as a company outside of that for promotional reasons shortly after screening and polls related made it clear that was a popular take they could promote Civil War with on this side of the screen: and even during the interview stages they poked fun at that fact in skits and more.

One of the most famous being the doughnut skit with Taylor, RDJ and Evans. The video provided below also has clips after the meme-worthy promo skit from some of Evans' offical notations, that; right away tell you exactly that. One of the most to the point statements in that regard was documented in Evans' and RDJs interviews during that 'VS' promotional: one example of which I'm putting here for y'all...

There are versions of that entire interview set from both main-focus actors and more, out there (especially documented on youtube) but yeah and again.. neither 'side' is 'right' or 'wrong': recognizing that in universe, was part of the point and a huge part of the story of Civil War in particular.

There is no character on Civil War's screen or in the MCU that isn't affected by that plot armor and hero/villain coding. Every single one of them have a bare minimum of one or two instances and examples of it, and those involved are very aware of it to state as much.

Just sayin' and, again; playing favorites with that concept in afvor of any character is hypocrisy, falling into that coding with favoritism as the flavoring; and always has been, hands down.

There are, absolutely; limitations to which that and things attached should be allowed under the fiction rule. The problem and arguments start when those limitations aren't followed through with or applied evenly from character to character by the creators and viewers both.

The baseline rules related to this that especially hasn't been applying in recent phases and has been a major factor in screwing over the story over all can be broken down to two simple sentences:

1. A hero is not a hero without the clear and consistent application of a conscience and it's effect in any event: before, during and after said event.

2. And yes, this should include guilt as a more than momentary thing, and especially consequence; or the lack of both or either where keeping that hero title is concerned.

Again, just sayin':

For those who pull this stuff...?

It doesn't matter which character is being bashed or upheld over another in the process as a favorite; doing the same thing in reverse and ignoring this kind of thing character by character in the same universe especially: isn't gonna get you anywhere or prove anything other than that the coding issue is yes a stronk one, and that favoritism, othering it enables, and hypocrisy; is a thing.

Also tags.

It genuinely saddens me how desperate people are to tear apart the one relationship Wanda has with a still-living person

Gotta love how this fucker even tries to claim that Wanda might be lying about how her parents died. I bet they headcanon that SHE killed them and then altered Pietro’s memories.

I couldn’t see the date on this post, but I’m assuming it was from 2019. That “happy ending” claim aged like milk.

[immortalnetizen]

The Ideology of Hatred

Probably the most crucial theme of Batman v Superman, and that which is most pertinent to our contemporary discord, is that of the empowerment and corruptive influence of hatred. Hatred is a natural human sentiment, the manifestation of our most profound sense of fear, regret, greed and envy and enabled by our innate fallibility, irrationality and selfishness.

The psychological catalyst which motivates and drives both Batman and Superman as well as Senator June Moon is that of hatred which emboldens us to tear down others for the sake of building our feeble and insecure sense of pride and self-perceived sense of righteousness. Bruce Wayne finds false solace through his cynical take on Superman being a false hero and god while projecting his own destructive and self-righteous tendencies as a crime fighter enforcing his own moral code those considerably weaker than himself upon Superman, thereby justifying Batman’s own jaded and uncompromising attitude and harmful behavior. Superman, likewise disheartened by the suspicion and contempt he has so garnished through the media and popular discourse, finds toxic comfort in focusing his hatred toward Batman while attempting to paint him and the society that enables him as the real hypocrites and threat to justice. In the end, neither character is really at war with one another, but a false perception that they’ve built up in their minds as the ultimate enemy while fooling themselves into believing that they are the ultimate and true hero.

I’m good so long as the other guy is more evil than I.

Both characters seek to affirm their sense of righteousness through the admonishment and destruction of the other as opposed to focusing on their own shortcomings and the real social issues and injustice going on around them; losing sense of who they really are by over-fixating on how they desire to envision and demonize the other. It is only through their blind and obsessive contempt for the other that Lex Luthor, a master of media and political manipulation, is able to deceive and play the two off of each other as he did Senator Moon and the Capitol bombing.

Hatred is a drug; it numbs us to our own shortcomings, projects demons where none be and inundates our most wretched sense of guilt and self-loathing by encouraging us to scape-goat those we prefer to see as a threat to our greatest wants and desires. Probably the most tragic irony of Batman v Superman is in how its core message went largely ignored by mass-audiences who, as opposed to walking away with any measurable degree of valuable incite, chose instead to indulge themselves in a campaign of blind outrage and hate-mongering, characterizing Snyder as an anti-christ or convenient strawman for their petty discord, dismissing people who either understood or showed any appreciation for the film as ‘cultists’ and peddling conspiracy theories such as claiming that film star Ben Affleck secretly purchased bulk copies of BvS DVDs in order to boost sales. Clearly no lessons need be learned here.

If only such individuals could be as perceptive as they are delusional about their own inflated sense of cultural taste and intellect. Indeed arrogance, haughtiness and intolerance is the death of objective film analysis and art critique.

[cartoonrival]

3 15 16 22 smirks

3. screenshot or description of the worst take you've seen on tumblr

ok if im being honest im STILL thinking about ytp/exploding hotdogs inthe micrwave-amy. NO SHE WOULD FUCKING NOTTTTT you guys just think that any girl liking traditionally feminine things automatically = no personality so the only way you can wrap your head around "fixing her" is making her less "girly". im still going to war over what ppl are doing to amy. literally no one on the planet understands amy like i do and shes not even one of my faves. i dont even enjoy understanding her like she's my own daughter i do it like its an obligation like im legally required. i also recently learned that "does naruto having blonde hair and blue eyes mean he's white-coded" is legitimate discourse and i fr think you all need serious help

15. that one thing you see in fanart all the time

ok this is my biggest hater opinion and i KNOWWWW its like unnecessarily pissy so i havent said antyhing abt it until now but i think you might understand me. I DONT LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE GIVE SHADOW SOME LITTLE THING TO TAKE CARE OF. I DONT LIKE HIS CHAO AND I DONT LIKE [expunged for my and others' safety] AND I DONT LIKE WHEN PEOPLE JUST GIVE HIM CATS. HE CANT TAKE CARE OF LITTLE CREATURES HE DOESNT CARE TO DO THAT HE DOESNT WANT TO HE JUST DOES NOT HAVE THE CARETAKERS SOUL LIKE HES NOT DOING THAT. HES NOT DOING THAT. BUT PPL DRAW IT ALLLLL THE TIMEE.......... IS THERE NO OTHER WAY WE CAN SHOW HIS SOFT SIDE THEN GIVING HIM SOME LITTLE CREATURE. HES NOT DOING THAT SHIT!!!!!!!!!! its so stupid bc its not even like ooc NECESSARILY i mean his chao exists in at least some canons and theres nothing really saying it COULDNT happen and its such a harmless thing to be a hater about BUT I HATE ITTTTTT also when ppl make the hedgehogs wag their tails BE SO SERIOUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

16. you can't understand why so many people like this thing (characterization, trope, headcanon, etc)

literally every ship with amy. i think you guys just are desperate to ship her w someone. AROACE AMY SWEEP. ASK ME ABOUT MY AROACE AMY AGENDA!!! also i know youve talked about this 1 million times but i cannot fucking stand how the greater fandom talks about scourge bc none of them even KNOW HIM AT ALL and miss literally EVERYTHING that makes his character interesting and fun bc you didnt even READ ARCHIE you just decided to take this one dude out and sand him of everything of note so you can make him a sad little meow meow ToT SONIC HAS PLENTY OF SAD LITTLE MEOW MEOWS CANT A GUY JTSU SUCK??? CANT HE JUST BE A TERRIBLE LOSER? COME ONNNNNNN but ofc you wouldnt understand bc you didnt even READ ARCHIEEEEEE.

22. your favorite part of canon that everyone else ignores

JULIE SU. JULIE SU. JULIE SU ALWAYS. theres literally so much that could be said and expanded upon w her family and background and not even in the way that canon didnt give her anything at all and you gotta diy everything, shes SUCH A FUN CHARACTER shes so funny and such a jerk and everyone writes her off as "girl knuckles" so fast that they wont even LOOK at how much unique personality she has and how UNIQUE her relationship w knuckles is LIKE.... ken penders actually gave js a fun and unique and dope personality, the FANS are the ones writing her off as girl knuckles. ummmmm its not looking good for you people! and theres the assumption ig that all the romances in archie just suck bc theres sort of a lot of them, obviously i dont like every one COUGHken and sallyCOUGH but like ToT KNUXSU IS SO SO SO GOOD.... THE WAY THEY TALK TO EACH OTHER IS SO GOOD like you guys wipe every characters personality to put them in a ship, then talk about knuxsu as if thats the issue with it and why you dont like it, but. ITS NOT EVEN LIKE THAT. AND IF IT WAS SHOULDNT YOU LIKE THAT SORT OF SLOPim sounding like lorillee rn. QPR KNUXSU AGENDA WILL NEVER DIE

and in the same vein as js, lien da also. ppl just in passing say that either shes hot or shes ugly and no one talks about that creepy as fuck issue where eggman surgically put her back together. that issue was so fucking dope. shes so awesome. i love you lien da you are terrible and i love you.

obviously literally just all of archie. nobody talks about archie. i fucking love archie but everyones too scared. i wish i could make that au

[biblioflyer]

Different Treks, Different Ethos? 

Is there authentic and valid disagreement between fans adjacent to the dumpster fires?

This is part of a series analyzing the finale of Discovery and the conflict between different aspects of the Star Trek fandom. This is in part inspired by and a reaction to a conversation between Andrew Heaton and Tim Shandefur on the Political Orphanage podcast. For more like this, use the Star Trek ethics tag.

I recently listened to a discussion between Andrew Heaton and Tim Sandefur on the Political Orphanage about the Politics of Star Trek, a couple of people I don’t particularly have a lot in common with except for a love of Star Trek. That being the case, it was an interesting exercise in seeing the franchise through someone else’s eyes. It was disorienting but interesting. 

Heaton displayed an impressive degree of understanding of views he may or may not share, but treats them with seriousness. I came away feeling like Sandefur in particular was caricaturing convictions he didn’t share and generally being deeply unfair, but it’s a viewpoint worth unpacking because I see variations on his arguments all over the place.

Essentially Sandefur draws a line between the Cold War liberalism of The Original Series and Star Trek The Next Generation, which he characterizes as “New Left”, maybe even “Post Modernist.” I’m fuzzy on whether he used the second term but I suspect he probably wouldn’t disagree given what I came to believe his definition of Post Modernist would be.

I know you may be already cringing because I brought up one of the biggest snarl worlds and thought terminating cliches in social discourse. I want to frontload this by saying that I think this is interesting, and even that it is probably reflective of a very real division in Trek fandom, not that I think Sandefur’s interpretation is fair minded or even accurate. He does get caught misremembering (a cynic might say butchering) Trek canon to make a point, but then who doesn’t have a tendency to emphasize the parts of the setting that affirm our convictions?

Kirkism

In Sandefur’s telling, the Cold War Liberalism of Kirk emphasizes equity, justice, intellectualism, is fundamentally optimistic about technology, is broadly positive about Western coded institutions and values, is prideful of its achievements, disdainful of ignorance (as defined by being scientifically backward or culturally illiberal), and perhaps most controversially: the Kirkian tradition is interventionist.

Kirk does not stop to ponder what the collateral damage will be from liberating the locals from an AI god before destroying said god. 

Kirk is mournful but resolute when it comes to arming a preindustrial people he is sympathetic to in order to ensure they are more evenly matched with a tribe the Klingons are arming. At no point does Kirk stop to interrogate what the gender, sexual, racial, religious, or political norms of said tribe are: it is enough that the tribe he is friendly with will at least be subjugated if not annihilated wholesale if Starfleet doesn’t arm them.

Kirk would not, and quite literally has not, hesitated to punch Nazis up to and including possibly causing an interstellar incident. Incidentally, in a sign the metapolitics of Star Trek may be swinging back to the Kirkian, Strange New Worlds even affirms that Kirk’s aggressiveness during the events of “The Balance of Terror” is the correct posture. Aggressively confronting an aggressor is depicted as essential for preventing a devastating interstellar war with the Romulans. 

I’m less persuaded about Burnham having been in the right with regards to “The Vulcan Hello” and the need to respond aggressively to the Klingons. There are a lot of variables between Shenzou opening hailing frequencies and T’kuvma becoming a martyr so I accept there is a strong argument for Burnham (and by extension, the “Kirkian tradition”) having been correct here.

So far, so interesting right? I would wager that your average social justice minded Trekkie is not actually finding fault with all of this if they weren’t immediately put off by the lack of severe criticism for Western values and institutions.

Kirk’s astropolitics meanwhile are complex. I would imagine a lot of us are uncomfortable with the idea of giving advanced weaponry to a preindustrial society no questions asked, but at the same time we don’t necessarily like the idea of them simply being wiped out. Do note that while the episode to my recollection presents this as a binary: arming or extinction, it is implicitly a trinary choice, it's just that the third option is really, really bad. That third option being directly interdicting weapon supplies from the Klingons and risking an interstellar war.

As far as the Discovery finale is concerned, the big thing is the techno optimism of TOS. Scientific progress is not unquestioned but it is generally portrayed as a positive.

There are certain verboten technologies in the TOS morality. Genetic engineering of humans to explicitly improve their physical and mental prowess is viewed as inevitably flinging the door wide open to fascism due to the way it creates “superior beings with superior ambition.” Likewise, the setting seems vaguely hostile to artificial intelligence. The common theme seems to be that these are crypto-illiberal technologies that seem highly likely to result in the subjugation of humans to amoral actors.

Yet when it comes to most other things, there’s rarely much in the way of introspection about whether sentient beings (I’m probably going to end up saying humanity a lot just for simplicity, which I know Azetbur would take me to task for due to its xenocentrism) have a right to “play God” or to use this or that technology responsibly. McCoy is often curmudgeonly but a lot of the time it seems like he’s written to be a silly luddite for Spock and Kirk to dunk on. Likewise McCoy is often skewered for his excitability by Spock, whom he regards as cold and amoral.

Next: Picardism and why what you would do to protect your favorite bar may not well advised for when nuclear weapons are involved.

[peridot-tears]

Okay, separate from my response to the Jiang Cheng hater post, but I think we're starting to view the word "abuse" the way we view "brainwash" when it comes to Chinese culture.

I always hated how people talked about how people in China are brainwashed by communists. "Brainwashed" meant you can't think for yourself. You're supposed to be criticizing the government, but instead you're insulting the intelligence and free will of the people. The same people who took to the streets in 1989.

(There is a beautiful article that goes deeper into how loaded this word is! Please read it, this is how I learned that "brainwashed" was originally a Chinese word that was loaned into English instead of the other way around! It originally meant to move on from the literal Century of Humiliation China experienced due to imperialism and invasion, but translated into something different!)

Similarly, what does "abuse" mean? To hurt the people in your care? But all parents hurt their children, even if unintentionally. Is it wrong to ground your kid now? Where is the line? In a lot of the discourse I see, people who jump to say Yu Ziyuan or Jiang Cheng is abusive is missing the point. If you took away the word "abuse," I think anyone, Chinese or not, would say what Yu Ziyuan did was wrong. She made everyone miserable. She pitted her children against their best friend they considered a brother. She made the past generation's arguments a burden for the next.

With Jiang Cheng, it's a bit more complicated. He's clearly doing something right if Jin Ling feels safe around him. It is considered normal, even in a modern context, to threaten to break his legs (there goes Uncle Jiang again, being dramatic). Him slapping Jin Ling is, again, era-appropriate, but it's still definitely not cool of him.

But when people say he's "abusive," it sweeps away all the nuance. It dismisses the amount of intergenerational trauma it took to get to this point. And it's personal to us because frankly, many Chinese diaspora are diaspora now because of war and famine. White Americans cannot say the same. It doesn't mean we don't think certain things our parents do are wrong. We have brains. We fucking know, and we're working really hard to not to pass that on. But our line and personal tolerance for how our parents treated us differs from person to person. I'm definitely more prickly about how my parents talk to me than a lot of my friends.

I've been seeing a lot of discourse over what is and isn't abuse over the years, and it's not just from Chinese people. It's my Colombian friends when they talk about the grandmother from Encanto. Yeah, we don't like her behaviors, but abuse? Did she strike Mirabel? Did she verbally insult her? Did she send her to her room for no reason? She didn't. And this is a woman who did things a certain way because that's how she rebuilt after watching her husband get killed while fleeing from drug cartel violence (implied, definitely believed by my Colombian friends, unsure if canonically confirmed).

"Abuse" can be such a code word for "horrible human who's out to get her children" without the nuance or regard for our own autonomy as people who had to grow up with toxic behavior from our guardians. It's a loaded word.

[fallowhearth]

It amuses me to think about an alternative world where Babylon 5 had a Tumblr resurgence and entered the hall of fame of old man yaoi. I can imagine the various discourses already.

Obviously Londo/G'Kar would be the prominent ship. Their relationship is one of the central cores of the show throughout its five seasons; they both change significantly as people, often in relation to each other. The ship wank would be incredible though. We'd have colonizer romance discourse. There would be epic flamewars over which one of them is the woobie, and secondarily top/bottom wars. People would beef endlessly over poc-coding but none of them would agree about which poc were being coded.

For fans of more problematique dynamics, there's so many to choose from. Londo/Vir has the employer/employee power dynamic and I'm certain Vir would become fans' self-insert headcanoned uwu woobie of choice. Differences in preference on how to write this ship would devolve into weeping and death threats. Fans of corruption arcs would choose Londo/Morden, Londo/Refa, or for true shippers of culture, Londo/Morden/Refa. One-shot BDSM erotica writers would also have fun with Londo/Emperor Cartagia.

A small but persistent contingent would keep the dream alive with the canon romance of Londo/Adira despite her death. Sides would form under the banners of homophobia vs rape apologism (because of her enslaved status).

The one thing the entire fandom would agree on is that all roads lead to Londo - we stan a six tentacle dicked bisexual king.

[mariacallous]

Bosnia and Herzegovina witnesses an increase in incidents of genocide denial over the past year, according to a new report by the Srebrenica Memorial Centre that was published on Friday.

The report said that incidents of genocide denial increased more than threefold compared to the previous year.

There were 305 registered instances of genocide denial in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a specific increase in April and May, showing how genocide deniers responded negatively to the announcement and adoption of a UN General Assembly resolution to establish an annual Srebrenica genocide commemoration.

Edin Ikanovic, co-author of the Memorial Centre’s 2024 report on genocide denial, said that Bosnia and Herzegovina is returning to the numbers of incidents seen before then High Representative Valentin Inzko imposed amendments to the criminal code of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2021, which prohibited the denial of genocide and the glorification of war criminals.

“The reason for this is the lack of prosecution of those who denied the genocide in the past. When the amendments to the criminal code came into effect, we saw that a very small number of actors dared to deny the genocide, whereas they had done so regularly before,” Ikanovic told BIRN.

“Now that they see there are no sanctions, they have reverted to their old ways. And that’s why we are facing what we are now,” he added.

Denis Dzidic, co-author of the report and executive director of the BIRN Bosnia and Herzegovina, said that genocide denial had been weaponised in political discourse, particularly during local elections.

He noted that state-controlled media in Serbia and Bosnia’s Serb-dominated Republika Srpska entity amplified these narratives, using media like SRNA, Informer, RTRS and Politika to promote revisionism.

“If the international community and judicial institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina do not react to this phenomenon, in the future we will return to 700 cases of denial of genocide on an annual level, as it was before the changes to the criminal code,” Dzidic said.

The report also identified prominent public figures involved in denial, including Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik and Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, among others.

Despite 23 documented instances of Dodik denying the Srebrenica genocide, the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina has dismissed multiple criminal complaints against him.

To date, courts in Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia and the Hague Tribunal have sentenced 54 individuals to a total of 781 years in prison and five life sentences for crimes committed during the Srebrenica genocide in July 1995.

[phoenixyfriend]

Masterlist: Polls (non-Star Wars)

Navigation Post

Fun fact, tumblr allows 250 links on the old editor and 100 in the new. So. Network of masterlists.

Make a Choice!

Your favorite character is a mad scientist of the engineering subspecies. As a child, teenager, or sleep-deprived young adult, what random appliance have they taken apart and possibly set on fire in the course of trying to "improve it?" New and unanticipated sentience for the appliance optional.

Anti-plagiarism check! Pick your favorite citation format.

You can only pick one: Jokes about how white people don't know how to spice or season food. Jokes about how white people shotgun cinnamon the second September hits.

Is it vaguely dystopian for large elementary and secondary schools to have numbers instead of/before names? (e.g. the students of PS 91Q only know it by that code, not Richard Arkwright)

How long does a daily commute ROUND TRIP need to be to qualify as 'long'?

It is easier to change... your appearance OR your personality

When you see DSM-V, how do you pronounce it.

microwaving water for tea

Everyone Pick The Same Number

Writing and fandom polls!

Posting WIPs or unfinished works?

Best non-standard narrative format (that I've personally used)?

How well do you know omegaverse?

What does "it reads like bad fanfiction" mean to you, WHEN YOU SEE IT IN THE WILD, assuming no context?

What do you mean when YOU say "it reads like bad fanfiction," assuming no other context? (Unfortunately, typo messed it up)

Have you ever posted something Anonymously on AO3? (Not counting temporary anonymity for events.)

Tell me about your culture (and opinions on such)!

Did your school have you do a Mole project where, while learning what an atomic mole was, you took home a pattern and made a stuffed mole (animal)?

How close is your nearest grocery store? (Or farmer's market, fruit stand, butcher, etc. Food shop that is not a restaurant.)

Did you have to stand and recite a Pledge of Allegiance type thing to your country of residence in elementary school (and possibly beyond)

Taking off shoes on an airplane

Favorite elementary/middle school "everyone just learned a new body part" phrase

Did you know that bagels are a whole Thing and just as important to the New Yorker identity as pizza, if not more so?

Is "Whistling will bring mice into the house" a thing for you guys?

Do schools in your area do active shooter drills?

Does your culture/region have 'ants on a log' as a snack? (contains peanut butter brand discourse)

Do you do egg battles?

Tell me about yourself!

Think of your favorite band! Make sure it it is a band and not a solo artist. Now tell me the gender breakdown.

If you're trans, what's your preferred way to finish this sentence?

Pronounce "Sixth"

When you see the letter J in an unfamiliar word that you don't know the origin of, how do you pronounce it? (Assume you are reading a text in English.)

How important is the eco-friendliness fabric content to you when buying clothes?

What is your least favorite kind of makeup to put on?

Did you ever go to a big box store with your parents, get bored, and decide to take your blood pressure at the kiosk while you waited for them to finish?

A question for the pals who grew up bilingual: Have you ever had to translate from 'the language of the home country' to 'the language of where we live now' for your immigrant parents?

Last app you downloaded?

Can you reliably identify the various national blue/red/white tricolor stripe flags? (e.g. France, Russia, Netherlands, Serbia, and so on.)

Which of my "childish for someone over 21" traits are you?

Which syllable do you stress when saying Zagreb?

Do you ever heat up your milk* for cereal? - In defense of Panda Puffs

First grey hairs?

Ladies, where do you buy (most of) your undies?

How tempted are you pronounce processes (the plural of process, not the verb) as "PRO-seh-SEES" when you write it out?

Which New Doctor Who companion First Meeting™ career are you?

What are you willingly sacrificing DESPITE it being important* to you the next time you go to the hair salon/fuck it up in the bathroom?

What's your comfort/background noise show that you can rewatch indefinitely to turn off your brain a bit?

How often do you wash your bra?

How often do you change/wash your sheets?

Oh shit, the peanut butter you just opened is separated, and you need to mix the oil back in with the rest. How?

Mayonnaise

Nonsense!

let's make a bell curve!

But I am le tired... 🚬

I use an Android because

Blood on ya undies (funny phrasing)

If you're NEW to tumblr (like joined in the last two or three years), are you seeking out guides on how to engage with tumblr?

Without context, FTW stands for

Rocky Mountain Oysters

Is pilaf/pilav* a casserole?

Tag meme, not a poll: Who’s your fake late spouse?